IF YOU MIND SPOILERS, STOP NOW.

I'll have more to say as the discussion progresses, but for now all I want to say is:

I was confused by a mention of Griffendorf's sword at the end, but I assume this is a different sword than the one kept by the goblin. Question: Is it just me, or did you get the impression that goblins are modeled on Jews? If so, that would be a shame, in a book whose moral core is inclusiveness.

Other than the chapter with Snape's far-fetched back-story, I thought the book was FANTASTIC!! What a roller coaster! still haven't quite let it all sink in. I loved Dumbledore's backstory, even though I didn't expect what was there. I knew she was working to make Dumbledore more human and less iconic (and J -- I told YOU that! ) But still -- wow!

The scene where Harry marched to his death was so powerful. I was pretty sure even then that he wouldn't die -- although I was nervous -- but it was still very, very well done.

I am a bit confused about how Voldemort using his blood saved him from that. The explanation didn't make sense in the first read. I'm going to reread it after I get a bit more sleep and see if it makes more sense then, but if anyone wants to help me out in the meantime...

This wasn't a kid's book. Every moment was real, frightening, and deadly. I laughed and cried and cheered and oohed and ahhed.

I do wish the epilogue was a bit fuller -- there really wasn't anything there that I didn't know. I mean, what did Harry Do wiht his life after that climax? How did the wizarding world react, mourn, and heal?

I don't know how they'll squeeze all this into a movie. Almost every page was totally necessary for the story to fill out right.

I was wrong about Neville....but in a way I'm glad. I rather liked him. I called Mad-Eye though. I just had a feeling about him. I didn't expect it to happen by chapter 5. When 2 people and poor Hedwig (what did that owl ever do to Rowling?) died by chapter 5 I was a bit shaken, to be honest.

Killing Fred was mean. It wasn't entirely unexpected -- I knew at least one Weasley ha to go -- but to kill one of the twins...I mean, she as good as killed George too. (Something else I would have liked to have seen. A few more sentences would have made that death more complete. Maybe even George at the celebration, hanging back a bit from the rest.)

Anyway, tomorrow I'm going to get it on audio CD so I can listen to it again.

I too was confused about the sword, but I like Christine's explanation.

There are two other things I didn't catch. I think Rowling said that the cats were important, and that someone would do magic (surprisingly) late in life. I couldn't identify either of those things

I have only one serious nit with the book--Harry, Ron, and Hermione had way too easy a time of it living rough for all those months. I know they were hungry, but they weren't hungry enough for my sense of realism.

I thought Snape's memories were a perfect way to fit the final pieces into the puzzle. I also very much appreciated Rowling's answer to the question "Why would Dumbldedore want Snape to kill him"--because only by being killed by someone who he had ordered to kill him could he deny Voldemort mastery of the Elder Wand. It's simple, but terribly clever.

To paraphrase Phineas Nigellus--say what you want about Rowling's writing, but you've got to admit, she's got style.

In the end, though, love did turn out to be very powerful. The fact that Harry decided, with purest intent, to die for the sake of his friends was enough to give them some protections against Voldemort. That he didn't end up dying was immaterial -- it was the love that did it. And Lily's love sacrifice protected Harry even to the end, when we realized Voldemort's mistake of taking Harry's blood.

As for Snape -- I'm getting used to it, I guess. I don't know. I'm still not happy that Dumbledore ordered Snape to kill him and I'm trying to decide if the fact that he was going to die anyway made it ok. She plays it off as a mercy killing (a proposal I never saw, despite the many explanations of why killing Dumbledore was all right), which is something that I am personally all right with, although she almost seems to downplay the seriousness of killing that she built up in book 6.

quote:

---

I know they were hungry, but they weren't hungry enough for my sense of realism.

---

I loved the Ron and Hermione interactions over all that. Folks have complained about it, but I thought it was great.

I had always been against Snape killing Dumbledore on his orders. The imminent death thing does move it closer toward being okay for me. You have:

(a) Dumbledore's imminent death as a consequence of his hasty attempt to resurrect Ariana

(b) Dumbledore marked for death at Malfoy's hand

(c) Snape bound to back Malfoy up under the Unbreakable vow

(d) Dumbledore does not want Malfoy to become a murderer, whereas he knows Snape would be repentant- Snape had offered to do "Anything" to help protect Potter

Anyway, I think it would have been nice if a few more details were planted in earlier books. The elder wand....part of the deathly hollows...it all popped out of thin air, even though the items were planted long ago. There could have been something...A History of magic perhaps...to mention the elder wand and give us a hint of its importance. I think it would have been nice to learn some of the wand lore a bit sooner too, to give it a chance to digest a bit before we put it into full use.

It really was a good book. I've been nitpicking it for 24 hours but I don't want to lose sight of the fact that it was a thrill ride from start to finish and definitely the best of the bunch.

As to Snape...my biggest gripe about that at the moment has to do with the revelation and how it happened. I mean, why did Harry just take the vial and walk up to the pensive? He did not trust Snape then...had no reason in the world to. Snape always hated Harry, that much is clear. Snape hated a lot of people, really. I think he had more hate in his heart than love -- even if he could see fit to loving Lily Evans. Voldemort may have turned Snape against him by killing the woman he loved (Voldemort seems to have turned the Malfoys against him in a similar way...by threatening their family) but even after the history and the explanation it still feels like Snape was a hate filled man who loved the dark arts. Especially in light of Dumbledore's history, I can understand how there can be shades of gray, but it almost seems as if Snape was working for Dumbledore not out of loyalty to him or his cause but rather because he and his cause were the only real chance to take down Voldemort. Voldemort, meanwhile, was a unique villain. In the end, even Grindewald had more humanity. Of course, Grindewald didn't rip his soul into 8 horcruxes. (Yes, 8, in the end. I'm not sure if anyone else caught that.) Voldemort may have been human at one time but that was long ago and in forgetting what it is to be human and to love he was able to turn even some of the most avid dark supporters against him. Narcissa Malfoy, who examined Harry and played his game of pretense. She, too, helped Harry...but once again I ask was it to hep Dumbledore/Harry and their cause or to spite Voldemort, who would have her son killed? The Malfoys are evil but they are at least human.

Had me from page one and was very difficult to put down late Saturday so I could get some sleep before going to work on Sunday.

Definately not a kids book, but one of the most accurately targeted YA novels I've seen.

I would have liked a little more aftermath in the epilogue as well, but I suspect there will be something from JKR in the not too distant future outlining the shakeout after Voldemort's fall.

I had no problem with the sword coming from the hat for Neville. The hat did the same thing in book 2, I don't see why the sword being back with the goblins is all that different. The hat provided what was needed.

I had no huge nits and teared up many times.

I personally feel Severus would have been pleased to have his name carried by Albus, especially if he had his grandmothers eyes.

I was relieved at the explanations JKR gave for Snapes behaviour. I think he was a very conflicted man, with a marked bent for the Dark Arts. The parralels to a German in the late 30's early 40's, raised to be a good nazi and indoctrinated with there propaganda, suddenly faced with love for a jewish maid. He questions his indoctrination and the ideology he has been raised in and chooses love. Just because he has chosen love doesn't mean that the other side of his life has lost it's attraction, power and influence are strong motivators as well.

quote:

---

Those memories seemed to have carried an obliviate charm with them, because Harry then went so far as to forget all the loathing Snape felt in his heart for Harry and put him on some kind of pedestal. Yeah, it turned out he was helping Harry all along but a little perspective would be nice. IMHO, it was an insult to Severus that Harry named a son for him. I can just see Snape rolling in his grave for that one.

---

I think the revelation of snape's motivations made perfect sense. Snape loved Lilly, even if that love would never be returned (due to his own failings). Dumbledore used that love, and the resulting hatred, to bind Snape to his cause. I agree, Snape treated Harry like dirt, but I understand why. If you love someone and all of the sudden you are faced with their child fathered by your rival. A constant reminder of what he lost, what he would never have. So yes, I can see how it was easy for Snape to mistreat Harry, while at the same time do almost anything to save him. I think Snape was a more tortured soul than anyone would have believed.

I think it is one of the rationales Dumbledore understood to back up his claim that love was more powerful than the darkest magic. It can motivate people to do things far beyond rational thought, inspire bravery and self sacrifice.

I'm still trying to let it all sink in before I read it again, the next time at a much slower pace.

And I bawled when Harry said "Albus Severus" at the end, choked me up right proper :-)

I love the Snape character, but honestly alot of that is due to the brilliant portrayal of Snape by Alan Rickman, if I wasn't seeing Rickman and hearing his voice when I read the Snape portions of the book I don't know that I would feel as strongly.

There were too many times Rowling was clearly pulling the strings.

Harry looked at Snape's memories solely because Rowling needed him to. I'll acknowledge the other arguement that given how much Snape dispised Harry and Snape's betrayal by Voldemort, Harry could fairly assume that whatever Snape wanted to pass on would be important. But it doesn't ring true. Snape would only give Harry all of those memories in an attempt at redemption. I don't think that is consistent with Snape. Would he have passed on what Dumbledore wanted HArry to know? Yes. Would he have laid his soul bare unless Rowling wanted to redeem him in the readers' eyes? NO.

As I said in another thread, I would have preferred she shifted the POV and let us see this "action" (and some of the other scenes) from a POV that experienced them rather than relying on the contrived actions of the memory sharing and "King's Crossing."

With the exception of Hedwig's and Dobbie's deaths none of them created an emotional connection for me.

Even with her killing characters left and right, she "cheated" to keep from killing Hagrid. There is no plausible reason for the death eaters and Voldemort keeping him alive and captive in the forest. Nor did Rowling try to justify why that happened.

I would have been much happier without the Epilogue. Again, I think she wrote it solely to forestall another Harry adventure.

I gagged when the kid was "Albus Severus." Please. I agree with Christine, it was too much to name the kid after Snape. I could see Harry telling his son that one of the bravest people he knew was a Slytherin but I can't see him forgiving Snape enough to name the child after him.

I'll admit that part of my love for Snape is Alan Rickman's portrayal.

I did like Narcissa Malfoy's betrayal of Voldemort and assistance of Harry's ruse as a way to protect her own son. That was very consistent with who she was at the start of HBP and the mother's love theme throught the story.

Oh - on that note - Way to go Molly Weasley!!!!!! I would never have guessed that Molly was the one to do in Bellatrix!!!

Having said that, King's Cross was the weakest part of the whole book. It would have been much better had Harry died for real. Rowling could have either continued the story from someone else's perspective, or continued it on from Harry's, softening the blow of his death by emphasizing his continued existence in the afterlife.

I also thought King's Cross was a weak chapter, but not because Harry didn't die. She planted a seed for why Harry didn't die way back in book 4. I struggled with that at first, but the more I think about it the more I realize that it is very consistent with the theme of the power of love and Voldemort misunderstanding of it and disregard for it. I also knew when Harry walked into that forest that he would live -- although I still thought his walking willingly to his own death was powerful and I didn't know how he would live. Harry had to live. That was one thing I was reasonably sure about. (I mean, there was always a chance...Rowling showed her capability to kill good people in book 4.) But still, it would have been disappointing if Harry had just walked into the woods, died, and then someone else had thrown the death blow.

I dunno...maybe I'm just so willing to forgive it because I thought the entire last battle and final duel were just so exciting to read.

Also Snape would have gotten some smug satisfaction in revealing to Potter that he was wrong and why.

There were also several points throughout the books where the normally cool and non-plussed Snape become incensed and very emotional when he is thought of or accused of being a coward.

I don't think it's an unreasonable stretch for him to reveal those thoughts to Harry, though he may have forseen a different and more selfish reaction from Harry. I don't think Snapes intent was to generate acceptance from Harry.

On an unrelated note, there was a character that was going to be left out of the Order of the Phoenix movie and JKR said that they needed to add the character back in or aspects of the later books would not make sense.

Who do you think the character was? My guess would be Luna or Kreature, maybe Grawp. Given the very cursory appearance of Kreature I think it was probably him.

Also did anyone notice who the character was that did magic later in life? I kept expecting it to be Dudley or Petunia and then when they didn't do it, I figured probably Filch, but I'm afraid I missed it now.

To my knowledge, no one came to magic late in life. Either Rowling forgot to add that scene (I was hoping for Uncle Vernon, I think that would have been hilarious), or she was giving general information and not something specific to the books.

As for Snape's memory; even assuming Snape was evil, Voldemort had just turned on him. I, at least, can imagine even an evil Snape wanted to give Harry a weapon against Voldemort and I think Harry would have seen it in a similar light.

Anyway, here's the full article:

I also wanted a better epilogue. Sure, the one we got was cool enough, but I kind of wanted a character by character look into how everyone turned out.

Rowling has said she plans on doing a Potter encyclopedia so we can see some of the stuff that didn't make it into the books. She said that Dean, for instance, had much more of a story than we saw in the books.

I hope she doesn't turn into Tolkien, who only really did stuff in Middle-earth. I'd like to see what else Rowling can write. Even though she makes the mistakes in writing she does, she can sure tell a story. I'd like to see a new, unique story with new characters that I can fall in love with.

The battle of Hogwarts was almost everything I wanted it to be, and better than I'd expected. But I was thoroughly disappointed by a few things.

1. Snape---I knew Snape was good and I knew that was largely because he liked Lily Evans. I knew that, I thought it was obvious since book 5. But what I wanted was for Snape to be more involved in the resolution of the story, I wanted him to play a nobler and more complex role. I believed he would die and I was certain he was going to play a clear and instrumental role in the fall of Voldemort, and that his death would forever clarify his loyalty. I liked the venture into his past, which I didn't fin unbelievable at all, since it matched (almost exactly) how I'd imagined his early years. But I was still disappointed at his (almost) irrelevant role in Book 7.

2. I wanted Harry to stay dead. Harry's march to his own death was dark, it was moving, and it was powerful. It was the crowning moment of the series, to me. And as I saw it Harry's palce was to join those who'd gone before. His parents, Dumbledore, Sirius, and now even Lupin and Tonks. I thought it was a dark but powerful ending and I loved it.

Until she cheated. By she I mean JK Rowling. I guess if it's a magical world then anything goes. Kill the main character then make the death irrelevant, sure that's fine. I think she originally planned on Harry's death (from the beginning) and got so attached to him as a character, and sensitive to her young audience, that she held "true" to her original ending (according to my theory) but then magicked Harry back to life to "get the best of both." But that robbed something from the integrity of the work (as I wanted to see it.) Harry's death march was emotional, and now it's empty. (To me.)

The end duel with Voldemort and Harry... wasn't what I wanted it to be. I liked that Voldemort killed himself with his own spell, as repelled by Harry's. But I otherwise hated that duel. The dialog was corny, and I just couldn't take the scene very seriously. Especially after Harry pulled a Neo and re-entered the matrix....

The Epilogue was interesting but I think I was still bitter about the book's resolution, so I didn't really care for it. I liked Harry's advice to his son about Slytherin and Severus Snape as "the bravest person he'd ever known," or whatever.

On the other hand, I didn't find Snape's allegiances to be obvious (his infatuation with Lily was). I actually thought Rowling went back a bit on the seriousness of murder that she had previously set up...although this murder was different from any we had seen or that anyone suggested. No one thought of or considered a mercy killing for someone who was going to die anyway. Maybe that makes it different. I don't know...just didn't really see it coming.

If anything the scene shows a succumbing to fatalism and exposes some genuine human weakness, though it manifests in a very angst teenage way.

Finished ‘Potter’? Rowling tells what happens next
Exclusive: Author gives details on events after the book’s final epilogue

Exclusive: J.K. Rowling on final 'Potter'
July 26: J.K. Rowling talks to TODAY's Meredith Vieira about the final "Harry Potter" book and the aftermath of certain characters.

TODAY exclusive
AP

In her only television interview after the highly anticipated release of the seventh and final installment in the Harry Potter series, author J.K. Rowling will sit down with NBC's Meredith Vieira in Edinburgh, Scotland, to discuss the conclusion of her series for the first time.

Spoiler alert: This story reveals some key plot points in the final Harry Potter book. So if you've haven't finished the book, J.K. Rowling asks that you not read this story.

If you found the epilogue of “Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows” rather vague, then J.K Rowling achieved her goal.

The author was shooting for “nebulous,” something “poetic.” She wanted the readers to feel as if they were looking at Platform 9¾ through the mist, unable to make out exactly who was there and who was not.

“I do, of course, have that information for you, should you require it,” she told TODAY’s Meredith Vieira rather coyly in her first interview since fans got their hands on the final book.
Ummm … yes, please!

Rowling said her original epilogue was “a lot more detailed,” including the name of every child born to the Weasley clan in the past 19 years. (Victoire, who was snogging Teddy — Lupin and Tonks’ son — is Bill and Fleur’s eldest.)

“But it didn’t work very well as a piece of writing,” Rowling said. “It felt very much that I had crowbarred in every bit of information I could … In a novel you have to resist the urge to tell everything.”

But now that the seventh and final novel is in the hands of her adoring public, Rowling no longer has to hold back any information about Harry Potter from her fans. And when 14 fans crowded around her in Edinburgh Castle in Scotland earlier this week as part of TODAY’s interview, Rowling was more than willing to share her thoughts about what Harry and his friends are up to now.

Harry, Ron and Hermione
We know that Harry marries Ginny and has three kids, essentially, as Rowling explains, creating the family and the peace and calm he never had as a child.

As for his occupation, Harry, along with Ron, is working at the Auror Department at the Ministry of Magic. After all these years, Harry is now the department head.

“Harry and Ron utterly revolutionized the Auror Department,” Rowling said. “They are now the experts. It doesn’t matter how old they are or what else they’ve done.”

Meanwhile, Hermione, Ron’s wife, is “pretty high up” in the Department of Magical Law Enforcement, despite laughing at the idea of becoming a lawyer in “Deathly Hallows.”

“I would imagine that her brainpower and her knowledge of how the Dark Arts operate would really give her a sound grounding,” Rowling said.

Harry, Ron and Hermione don’t join the same Ministry of Magic they had been at odds with for years; they revolutionize it and the ministry evolves into a “really good place to be.”

“They made a new world,” Rowling said.

The wizarding naturalist
Luna Lovegood, the eccentric Ravenclaw who was fascinated with Crumple-Horned Snorkacks and Umgubular Slashkilters, continues to march to the beat of her own drum.

“I think that Luna is now traveling the world looking for various mad creatures,” Rowling said. “She’s a naturalist, whatever the wizarding equivalent of that is.”

Luna comes to see the truth about her father, eventually acknowledging there are some creatures that don’t exist.

“But I do think that she’s so open-minded and just an incredible person that she probably would be uncovering things that no one’s ever seen before,” Rowling said.

Luna and Neville Longbottom?
It’s possible Luna has also found love with another member of the D.A.

When she was first asked about the possibility of Luna hooking up with Neville Longbottom several years ago, Rowling’s response was “Definitely not.” But as time passed and she watched her characters mature, Rowling started to “feel a bit of a pull” between the unlikely pair.

Ultimately, Rowling left the question of their relationship open at the end of the book because doing otherwise “felt too neat.”

Mr. and Mrs. Longbottom: “The damage is done.”

There is no chance, however, that Neville’s parents, who were tortured into madness by Bellatrix Lestrange, ever left St. Mungo’s Hospital for Magical Maladies.

“I know people really wanted some hope for that, and I can quite see why because, in a way, what happens to Neville’s parents is even worse than what happened to Harry’s parents,” Rowling said. “The damage that is done, in some cases with very dark magic, is done permanently.”

Rowling said Neville finds happiness in his grandmother’s acceptance of him as a gifted wizard and as the new herbology professor at Hogwarts.

The fate of Hogwarts
Nineteen years after the Battle of Hogwarts, the school for witchcraft and wizardry is led by an entirely new headmaster (“McGonagall was really getting on a bit”) as well as a new Defense Against the Dark Arts teacher. That position is now as safe as the other teaching posts at Hogwarts, since Voldemort’s death broke the jinx that kept a Defense Against the Dark Arts professor from remaining for more than a year.

While Rowling didn’t clarify whether Harry, Ron and Hermione ever return to school to finish their seventh year, she did say she could see Harry popping up every now and again to give the “odd talk” on Defense Against the Dark Arts.

More details to come?
Rowling said she may eventually reveal more details in a Harry Potter encyclopedia, but even then, it will never be enough to satisfy the most ardent of her fans.

“I’m dealing with a level of obsession in some of my fans that will not rest until they know the middle names of Harry’s great-great-grandparents,” she said. Not that she’s discouraging the Potter devotion!

“I love it,” she said. “I’m all for that.”

Here's what I can mange typing as I'm listening of the interview:

Question: Was Snape always intended to be a hero?

Heroes aren't perfect people, I think, but people who are forced into difficult circumstances and do the best they can with them.

I thought of another thing I really wanted to see in book 7, I wanted a redemption of the Malfoys. Given the bad treatment they'd received and Draco's unwillingness (I thought) to reveal their prisoner was, in fact, Harry Potter, I was hoping that they would play a critical role in the fall of the Dark Lord's organization also. I wanted more Snape and more Malfoy involvement.

When Lily is walking with Harry and the other ghosts in the forest and tells Harry he's been so brave. I could just HEAR a mother's voice, telling her very tired, scared, but adult (or almost) son this in a way that isn't patronizing, doesn't talk down to him, but gives him that bit of strength he needs to finish what he needs to do. Wow. JKR really gets the power of motherhood, in a fascinating way.

One thing I was ... is surprised the right word? Not sure if it is, but one thing I took note of was the scene with James and Sirius where they levicorpus Snape, and he calls Lily a mudblood. In the first telling of that scene (book 5?) and ever since, I have carried the impression that Snape was so angry with Harry for seeing that scene because he was humiliated by Harry's father. I see now that it's because he, in a moment of humiliation, said a horrible, horrible thing, and (maybe?) that horrible thing caused him to lose Lily's love (or that she cared for him.) I thought that JKR glossed over that detail in the retelling, and that while it stood out brightly to me, I don't know that all that many other readers (kids in particular) would pick up on that. To me, that's what made all of Snape's memories genuine, is the fact that he laid bare the moment of his greatest remorse/regret, and seeing it with the other scenes w/Lily put it into a much deeper context, so learning later that Snape's patronus was a doe wasn't much of a surprise at all. (Has anyone else run to check I think beginning of book 6 to see if you can see the form of Snape's patronus when he meets Harry at the gates of Hogwarts after Harry's been beaten up by Malfoy on the train? I am pretty sure Tonks sends her patronus, Snape comes to greet them, and then Snape sends another one up to the castle, though I might be remembering that wrong. I don't have a copy of 6...now that 7 is out i need to go buy my own copies of 1-6, LOL)

Totally agree on Alan Rickman's portrayal of Snape.

Also felt a little disappointed with the epilogue. What does harry DO now? Where do he, Ron, Hermione and Ginny work? What happened with Ted, his godson? I fully expected the epilogue to include Harry seeing TED off for his first year at Hogwarts, but the timing didn't work since Ted would be 19 if it's 19 years later....

I found some of the elder wand/master of the wand/who gained the upper hand in which duel and therefore was the master of the want/knowing Snape's patronus shape stuff a bit too convenient. But, you know, it's a 750 page book. No more convenient than the stuff they needed for their trip fitting into Hermione's tiny handbag. Master stroke having the name Voldemort carry a taboo so that the bad guys can find them easily. That was a surprise!

I also felt like the camping scenes just went on and on, was that only me? I think it's because I read them in snippets throughout a busy day, whereas most of the rest of the book I read in 2 or 3 hr chunks before bed. But it did help move time along, and it's helpful to NOT have the main characters in peril constantly. This book had a LOT of action, so those tent scenes were necessary for pacing purposes if nothing else. There's something for me to learn there...

Ah, I agree w/you Zero, about snape and wanting something grander for him. His death, I predicted, LOL, and was sure of - however, I wanted something bigger for him too. And how exactly did he "protect the students at Hogwarts" when they all got so beat up?

Agree, Christine, Snape wasn't a hero. But, he did OK with where the place he ended up. The place he ended up was largely because of the choices he made, so he made SOME better choices (and some not too great - though I loved a previous poster's explanation of the animosity between Snape and Harry - imagine your ex-lover's child...having ALL of the ex's NEW love's characteristics, but the ex-lover's eyes. Oh, dagger right to the heart!) Anyway - he's not a hero. Brave? I suppose. I saw him as more of a surviver. Eh, well, til the end. He survived the situation as best he could, doing mostly what he felt necessary for his own good. Nothing inherently good or evil in that.

I can't say I was thrilled with the elder wand but it worked.

You're not the only one to think it was slow in parts, notably the camping parts, but I'm going to have to disagree with all of you. It was only slow by comparison to the extreme pace of the rest of the book. I found scarcely a moment that could have been cut and I'm wondering how this will fit into less than a 4 hours movie. Actually, I'd rather sit through a 4 hour movie, if they do this well, than see any of this cut. I don't often say that I haven't said that about any of the previous books...books need to be translated to the big screen and portrayed rather than shown exactly...but this last book is special. The action scenes will make good cinema without much translation and the rest is essential to tell a good story.

You can't stay on top of a roller coaster throughout an entire book.

Overall, a very thrilling end to a great series. Towards the end my head was spinning and I still don't understand everything that happened. I also see I wasn't the only one.

I cant think of a comparable reading experience since I read LOTR for the first time. Some may have been due to the buildup and anticipation, but mostly it was the story. I reread book 6 and finished the day the new one came out, which really worked out well.

Those two scenes where Harry figures out he has to die then marches off to make his sacrifice were among the more memorable I have ever read. No wonder KDW started that thread about Messiah figures.

I'll offer some criticisms. It seems rather brazen to do so, all things considered.

I *heart* McGonagall (sp?)

I too would have liked to have seen Snape have a more integral role in the plot. He was one of my favorite characters.

I would have preferred to see the language stay G-rated. I understand the concept of the series growing with the characters, but it may clip off part of her readership. Kids won't be reading the series over as many as 10 years anymore. Some of what showed up in this last book could be pushing it for parents of 10-12 year-olds. I don't think the "effings" and "hells" added to the experience.

I don't know what to say about the Harry dying temporarily and coming back, so I won't say much other than it pushed my liberal ability to suspend disbelief. It might take some time to understand. Ditto for some of the wand stuff.

Part of me would have liked to have seen Harry actually kill Riddle rather than having Riddle screw up and kill himself because of some somewhat convoluted wand rules.

I agree that the wind-down could have been more satisfying. I think a mourning scene in the immediate aftermath could have been powerful, something to emphasize the enormity of the victory's cost.

All small things, in perspective. And I fully admit I read the book as a mesmerized fan on the edge of the seat, and may have missed some of the details that would have me retract the thoughts above.

Thanks, JKR. What a ride!

I'm pretty frustrated with her portrayel of Lupin. I mean, leaving his pregnant wife? UGH. I've honestly never really bonded to Tonks, but I did like Lupin. However, when he made that decision, my empathy went away. Even after he went back to her, I never was truly satisfied that he now loved and cherished his role as husband and father.

In fact, Rowling doesn't seem to handle father characters particularly well. Substitute father figures, sure, but the real ones are mostly disappointing. Mr. Weasley is the best of the lot, but even he is a much more minor character than his wife, and his actions don't seem to have nearly as much impact as hers on the lives of their children. Maybe it's because at the time Rowling came up with the idea for the series, she was a single mom?

And why oh why oh why kill Fred???? (Okay, I know why, but talk about gut-wrenching.) The Weasley twins have always been just about my favorite characters. I felt a bit robbed that we didn't get to experience George's grief more than tangentially, or find out what happened to him now that his brother was gone.

Maybe Fred's death means so much to me because my brother had an identical twin who died as a baby, and I've always had a longing for identical twin sons. But I also liked their attitude in the face of adversity. Even when all around them was dark, they were lights in the darkness, in more than one sense. Not only good, but fun and funny. No other character in the books keeps that sense of wonder and ability to joke about even the darkest subject matter.

Poor Hedwig. I didn't see that coming, and her death hurt more than Mad-Eye Moody's by far.

Okay, the camping-and-wandering-aimlessly-for-months part of the book dragged for me. When none of the characters knew what to do, I felt JKR should have skimmed a bit more, instead of such a repetitive blow-by-blow of nothing happening.

I felt Harry's death/not-death to be appropriate and telegraphed, and it fit for me. Maybe because I have a tendency to think along similar lines in my current novel. Which means I'm sure to face all kinds of criticism when/if mine ever gets published. I wonder if anyone will believe some of the parallels in my story are just that and nothing more? It's not identical to what happens to Harry, but there's a definite similarity. Oh well, I'm not changing my plot.