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:

Christine--told you so ; )

 

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.

I assume the baby at the end is Voldemort's soul, which has never outgrown infantile self-centeredness.
 

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.

[This message has been edited by Christine (edited July 22, 2007).]
 

I think that somehow the magic of the hat was able to call that sword back when Neville needed it and had proven beyond a reasonable doubt that he was in the right house -- however much people doubted in earlier books.
 

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.

[This message has been edited by J (edited July 22, 2007).]
 

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.

I, too, missed the person who was supposed to do magic late in life -- I was even disappointed. I had rather expected it to be Dudley and very early in the book and when that happened just kept waiting but it never happened. I guess that's the problem with reading reported teasers.
 

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

It's really very interesting. Someone joked about a "Potter's Shadow" but I think the story of Malfoy struggling against becoming a murderer in 6th year is pretty provoking. Was Snape working with him, trying to bring him back from that?

 

Dumbledore's death at Snape's hand was neccesary to deny Voldemort the Elder wand according to the original plan. The death was only part mercy killing--it was mostly an intentional sacrifice by Dumbledore to deny Voldemort the only weapon that would have (had Harry not become its master) worked against Harry's wand.
 

(I have seen copies---even supermarkets here are carrying it---but I think I can get a better deal (but maybe not the best) at Books-a-Million tomorrow. Besides, I have to buy Books Five and Six as well.)
 

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.

I think I got sidetracked with all that. Anyway, Harry took the vial and with no real motivation that I could see, went to see what Snape's dying thoughts for him were. 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.
 

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.

Ok, it still didn't upset me when he died...even after I knew the truth...
 

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.

Same goes for Richard Harris as the original Dumbledore, though I like the new guy too.

 

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.

[This message has been edited by J (edited July 24, 2007).]
 

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.

Definitely could have cut the epilogue, though.
 

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.

That said Harry needed to know what was in those memories, I suspect he was expecting something different. But it was Snapes dying declaration and Harry had to know what they contained.

 

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.

[This message has been edited by HuntGod (edited July 24, 2007).]
 

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.

I do wish the Veil had played a role in the book. It was set up in book 5 as an important object but... alas.
 

Anyway, here's the full article:

http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/19935372/
 

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.

By the way, I'm still getting over my Potter-withdraw. I went to Barnes and Nobles and just thought, there's nothing else. Nothing will be as good as this again. Everything else is a pale imitation. Which is completely untrue, of course. It's just sad to let that part of my life go.
 

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.

Otherwise I liked the book quite a bit.
 

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.

I'm quite glad Harry lived. I thought it was great when he threw off his cloak in the great hall and everyone saw him still alive. The monologue didn't even bother me as much as those kinds of things usually do. I guess it just seemed to me that Harry and Voldemort needed to talk a few things out before it was all over. I don't even have trouble believing that Voldemort would have stopped and listened. After all, he'd hit Harry squarely with 2 "unblockable" killing curses to date and neither one had accomplished their goals!
 

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?

Answer: Is he a hero? You see I don't see him really as a hero.
He's spiteful. He's a bully. All these things are still true of Snape, even at the end of this book. But was he brave? Yes, immensely.
 

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.

As for Draco, I'm glad they all survived. The curt nod he gives Harry in the epilogue says a lot to me. They don't like each other, but there is a sentiment there, possibly grudging respect. Draco knows Harry saved him. He might not like it, but he acknowledges it. While Draco may never be a good guy, I think he realizes he can never be what Voldemort became. At least, I hope not.
 

I was all right with the Malfoys. I had hoped that Draco would turn out to be a bit more "good" in the end, especially after not revealing Harry's identity at the manor, but in the end I think the Malfoys were a lot like Snape. They could love...one another. Voldemort turned them away, too, in his inability to understand love. I kind of hope Lucius went back to Azkaban for a while to finish his sentence but other than that, I think the family is what it is...likely to join the next dark lord who comes around but unlikely to lead.
 

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.

In any case, I rather expected something like the camping scenes before I read the book. Honestly, I didn't expect Harry to be quite so isolated and on the run -- I didn't expect Voldemort to take the ministry but of course, that's what had to happen. But I did expect there to be quite a bit of time thinking, planning, and scheming, waiting for direction. I thought Rowling summarized these parts well so that they took as much time as they needed and not too much time.
 

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.

Though, why wasn't Fred in their number? Lupin was!
 

I'll say again that I thought the camping was very appropriate. There were a couple of times that I found myself wondering when they are going to go someplace Harry's parents home/grave but for the most part it just seemed like what I would expect to happen when fugitives are on the run, trying to fulfill a mission with limited knowledge of how to carry it out. I would even say that I expected times like that in the book before I read it and was pleased that they didn't take up too much time.
 

We all knew coming into this that people were going to die, I think she did wimp out a bit on who did die, but that is just me.

About Lupin and Tonks. Looking back, that did feel like it was added on. My opinion is that Rowling wanted Harry to have a Sirius relationship, or in other words, he was the godfather to their kid, so he would end up raising their kid. Harry being a parent immediately after these events was appealing to me. No, I don't like them both getting killed, but I think I understand why she did it.
 

I saw an interview with Rowling last night on Dateline. She said she traded out Lupin and Tonks for Arthur Weasley -- who was supposed to have died in book 5. It felt like a bad trade to me. For one thing, Snape got bitten by the snake the same way Mr. Weasley did and he died in about thirty seconds. Yet Mr. Weasley lingered long enough for Harry to get him some help! It's not that I wanted to see him die or anything, but if she was going to save him then she should have reconsidered the manner of his death -- or the manner of Snape's.

I wanted to see a few more deaths, in the end, to make the whole thing seem a bit more real. Or maybe I wanted to see the deaths that were there portrayed better. For all the people who have died -- and in the interview, Rowling suggested that for her, death was a huge theme -- I didn't really feel the deaths. With Cedrick I felt shock, because it was the first. With Dumbledore I was a bit upset because he was so important. But in the last book, Dobby and Hedwig were sadder deaths than any of the humans. I'm not 100% sure what rule of writing she violated to create this distance, although I have a few ideas, but it's a shame.

Personally, I had to disagree with Rowling's assertion that death was the biggest theme. (She can say what she wants -- as I reader it's allowed for me to have my own experience. ) I always thought love was. I'm sticking with that.

I didn't mean for this to be such a long post...sorry!
 

Killing Fred was bad especially where he and Percy had just forgiven each other. But it would have been worse to see George's response to it or even more of the hospital response from the rest of the family. JKR just skipped it.

She also killed a lot of characters we'd come to care about as if they were footnotes - ex. Mad Eye, Lupin and Tonks. They all seemed like add ons because there was no connection for the reader. Even the gall of mounting Mad Eye's eye on the door is lost because Harry doesn't respond to it. Or at least, we don't see the response. We know there was one because he risks detection to steal the eye back but there wasn't any feeling in it.

She had Lupin acting out of character. While he might have been appalled about passing his "affliction" on to a child, I just didn't think he'd abandon them. Not once but TWICE. First, to join Harry on his quest. Then at the battle for Hogwarts. He rushed into battle without assuring his wife and child would be safe. GRRRRRRRRRRR.

I can see Tonks rushing after Lupin in an attempt to protect him because she loves him but it didn't seem like they had a backup plan for Teddy. That was annoying. More so that Harry didn't take Teddy into his household after the fact. Maybe Tonk's mom raised Teddy but the reader is left without knowing what happened to him once his parents died.

I think this was a real limitation in staying in the POV she did. Since Harry wasn't there, JKR couldn't show these events. Because she couldn't show the events, and Harry didn't really react to them on an emotional level, the deaths are pointless and without impact.

 

On another subject: I've read a review that says that Harry really had no choices and showed no real growth in book seven, and I beg to differ.

He had lots of choices and how he chose definitely indicated his growth. He could have refused to look at Snape's memories, but he had grown enough to realize that just as Dumbledore was more complicated than Harry had thought possible, perhaps Snape was as well.

And seeing Snape's memories, I believe, helped him be brave enough to give himself up and not fight Voldemort in the Forbidden Forest. That choice to go willingly in order to prevent any more loss of life was what, along with the blood Voldemort had taken from him (which I have heard may have acted as a kind of horcrux--or connection to life--for Harry) made it possible for him to return from death.

Seeing Snape's memories gave me an idea about Dumbledore's plea to Snape at the end of book six, besides. What if the poison Dumbledore had drunk to disclose the locket overcame the protection Snape put on Dumbledore's arm to keep the curse from progressing beyond his blackened hand? What if Dumbledore's rush to find Snape was because he could feel the curse moving up his arm and closer and closer to his heart, and he needed Snape to "kill" him before the curse could if all of their plans were going to work?
 

Why couldn't Kreacher have taken Regulus with him when he left the island (as Dobby was able to take people with him from Malfoy Manor)?

And what happened to James Potter's parents? Sirius mentions them and how welcoming they were to him while he was on holiday from Hogwarts, but I don't recall Rowling ever saying what happened to them (the one that was a Peverell descendant had to have died because James had the invisibility cloak, and the other one must have died, too, because the only living relatives Harry had after his parents died were the Dursleys), but I'd like to know what happened to the Potters. Maybe she'll put that in her encyclopedia.
 

Hagrid should have died at least twice in the book, Harry should have died, Neville should have killed Bellatrix, and then died, at least one more Weasley needed to die, probably Ginny (so that everyone Harry loved would join him in death), and that would have been (I think) a far more powerful ending.
 

[This message has been edited by J (edited July 30, 2007).]
 

quote:

---

The theory of Harry raising a godson the way Sirius would have liked to raise him made poetic sense to me too, but from the epilogue it turns out he didn't end up raising Ted, so it made less sense.

---

Yeah, I brought this up with my wife as well. I thought Harry ended up raising Ted (he was the godfather, after all). I had to remind her that the epilogue was 19 years after the end of Deathly Hallows, and that Ted would have been 19, almost 20, and would have been out of Hogwarts for a few years. Though Rowling doesn't say it, I really think Harry would have raised Ted. If nothing else, it might have helped him settle down from the stress of the first 17 years of his life and really focus his love onto something/someone. Having a baby changes the world for you.
 

That person waves around big words and "story telling principles" (whatever the heck that means) but completely missed the struggle Harry was going through. Of course he wasn't going to turn away from good and towards evil -- but that almost never happens anyway. Star Wars proposed to do it but they failed miserably and I've still never seen a real hero believably tempted to evil. Besides, Voldemort's brand of evil was so bad that even evil people turned away from it (Malfoy).

Moral dilemmas are rarely defined by good vs. evil. More often, it is a choice between what is right and what is easy (that's a quote from one of the books...but I can't remember where). Harry could have chosen to run and hide...Aberforth certainly thought that was the best thing. He could have chosen to go after the Deathly Hallows instead of the Horcruxes -- that was one of the greatest moral decisions he had to make. Should he destroy evil or seek power for himself? And he was really tempted. There was a part of me hoping he'd go after the wand, more to keep it away from Voldemort than anything else but still, it was the wrong choice.

Harry had to decide how to deal with the goblin. As it happens, I think he made the wrong choice there by even considering withholding the sword. He also made a bad choice in using the cruxiatas (sp? sorry...I listen to these books on tape and have no idea how that's spelled) on the death eater at Hogwarts. His anger created a real temptation for him and he gave into it.

No, he wasn't going to go to the dark side. But come on!

Moreover, he grew and changed very much over the books. I skimmed through the first few chapters of book 1 yesterday because I was interested in recapturing the moment when Harry found out he was a wizard. What a scared kid he was back then....looking for love in all the wrong places (his aunt and uncle). He did more than grow up over the books, although that was a big part of what happened to him. He grew to understand love and death, power and the price of it. I don't think he would have walked towards his death in book 1 without a fight. I'm not even sure he understood he could die in book 1. How many 11-year-olds do?

He had to battle with his own anger. We saw that in book 5. He still ha some anger in book 7, but he had learned to control it. The anger was not just teenage angst; it was borne of isolation, loneliness, and frustration with what the wizarding world was putting him through.

it put him through it again in book 5...worse, even. But I noticed Harry did not respond the same way to it. He kept cool and chose to stick to his mission. He was sorely tempted by the muggle-borns in the ministry, but he did not sacrifice his mission for every person he might have tried to save in a previous book. He happened across Luna and took advantage of an opportunity, but he did not go after her. This shows reason and logic despite what his nature -- anger and heroism combined -- would have suggested he do.

I'm probably rambling a bit at this point but basically...Harry had LOTS of choices, changed quite a bit, and struggled with moral dilemnas. Just because a moral dilemna doesn't come with an angel on one shoulder and a devil on the other doesn't mean it's not there and frankly, it's boring when it is.
 

[This message has been edited by J (edited July 30, 2007).]
 

I guess they failed to notice that Harry went from the shy abused kid to someone who took on a task bigger than themselves. Even choosing to sacrifice himself for his friends. Nope, no change there at all. Stagnant...totally stagnant.
 

And Harry just... DOES it. Harry, use the imperius curse. Ok. "Imperio!" Done.

It's just that easy?

After spending the past 6 years with Harry learning how hard it is to learn how to do magic correctly, and how long it takes to produce a good patronus charm, or make a potion that works like it should, or learning out to Apparate, or anything, but the Imperius curse, which in my mind would have to be more complicated even than Avada Kedavra (how much harder would it have to be to keep someone alive and to CONTROL their every move, than to simply kill them?), and Harry pulls a rabbit out of his hat and does it right the very first time.

I remember after reading that part, I stopped reading, and essentially said to myself. "Pff. Bull****. No way he could do that spell on the fly, having never practiced it before, and have it work this well. But whatever. What happens next?" before I continued reading.

Anyone else have this reaction?
 

1. Harry had the Deathly Hallows, that's why he could come back to life. I think. Or maybe Voldemort's wand wouldn't kill part of his own soul. There may be debate on this for years.

2. With millions worldwide in love with the Potter series, there has to be one person to write a bad review. With thousands of good reviews, no one person gets the spot light. But some jerk writes a bad review, and he gets attention for days. I just don't care. Someone once said that critics don't contribute, they don't create. They just pass judgment on what is around them without benefiting anyone.

3. It occurred to me that the way Dumbledore led his life he wasn't really free. He had to do things that might not have been good things to accomplish his overall objective of defeating Voldemort. Harry had a taste of that. A case could be made that the choice they made to fight evil makes them free, but they were still sort of slaves to their morality. I don't think I'm saying that right, but its something to have these two characters have to do the things they do, and be willing to die (Harry without really experiencing life) so others can live their lives, many without noticing what's going on.

But then, that might just be the ramblings of a guy that hasn't had enough sleep.
 

A few things did bother me, but the things I loved outweighed them by far. I think I've been teetering on whether or not I liked the series, until now. I wanted to see how it ended before deciding.

Kings Cross
What bothered me with this scene was the lack of conflict and emotional stakes. At no point did I doubt Harry would go back to being alive. If she'd found a way to run some emotional stakes through his heart, make some consequences to his choice, etc. The scene might have worked out. Imagine if Dumbledore had said, "Well, you can back, Harry--but you'll go back as Crabbe!" (Okay, I'm teasing, but I think folks get my meaning.)

Snape's Memories
I didn't have a problem with this at the time. There's a line that said something like, "He didn't care whose memories they were, he just wanted to be someone else for a while." For me, that made sense. I've felt like that during times of intense, crushing emotion before. I know I've had times I would have done something like that--given such a bizarre option--just for a moment of detachment. However, from the responses, it seems clear she should have written that motivation up better.

Months in the Woods
I didn't like this. It felt slow, and I kept wondering to myself what this whole sequence was about. All they gained, plot-wise, was the sword. Ron left and came back. We got to see how much Hermione cared about him, but we could have seen that elsewhere. Ron leaving and coming back could have been done elsewhere. (We also learned about the unusual ability of the Deluminator.) I'm guessing I might have missed something--was there a point to it?

19 Years Later
"In a novel you have to resist the urge to tell everything.” I don't know if I agree with that, given the context. Obviously, an argument can be made in general. I think it would have worked quite well if she had pulled back to an omnipotent PoV and told a little of the world after these events. I wanted to know things, and I felt unsatisfied the end. Deeply unsatisfied. I would have been more satisfied without that epilogue entirely, I think. Like someone said, I wanted to know what happened to Harry, to Hogwarts and the world. I didn't need to know everything, but that scene didn't tell me anything. I didn't need to be told Harry and Ginny got married and had kids. Same with Ron and Hermione--though it was interesting to see those two still bickering after 19 years. Good job with that I also appreciated the single, curt nod from Malfoy. Good job there, too. Neville as Herbology Teacher--that's what I wanted to know. Good job. But I felt cheated that she didn't mention more about the Trio and their lives.

Ginny
Took me a while to sort this out. I didn't like that she skipped Harry reconciling things with her. The reader got to see them get together, and then Harry be an ass to her (for noble reasons of course.) Then, since she didn't show them reconciling (or even talking), it was like Harry got off free. He should have had to work a little to get her back, in my opinion. I felt Ginny would say, "I love you but I don't trust you." And Harry would have to earn her trust again. I don't need to see that happen in detail, though. Just know that she said it, and that he did earn her trust back somehow because we then saw them together 19 years later would have worked for me. Even a snippet of conversation between them would have been more satisfying to me, really.

It didn't ruin the book for me, but it left an empty, unsatisfied hole in me at the end.

Some things felt built up before, that she seemed to drop cold. Petunia, for example; I expected a role from her, or even Dudley. The whole scene with the Durselys seemed forced somewhat--except for Dudley's bit. (And that, not so much the affection, but the "I don't get it" part. That really clicked. It was like he was seeing for the first time that there really was something bigger than him going on. Like he actually thought, "Bloody hell, I'm just a minor character used for nothing more than comic relief.")

I can live with all that, though. It was a good finale. I hope she gives us something meaty in the encyclopedia. More little trivial tidbits about all the characters would be fun--and that book will sell well! The dissatisfaction I felt eases when I remember that book is coming and might have more final details.

After that, for crying out loud, I also hope she moves on to do something else. It was a GREAT ride, but I'm with everyone who says they want to see what else she can do. Maybe 20 years from now, she can revisit the world. I'd love to see a Lilly Potter and the... book, someday. Not in this decade, though. (Or a book that involved Albus, James and Lilly, even.)

Okay, I rambled and I'm tired. I hope everyone is smart enough to skim this, because I'm too tired to clean it up right now. Apologies.

[This message has been edited by lehollis (edited July 31, 2007).]
 

re: Wandering through the woods -- the point of all this was to isolate Harry from the wizarding world and to up the stakes. He wasn't just looking for Horcruxes -- he was a fugitive on the run. He couldn't go to any of his friends or they would have been arrested. He was hungry, rootless, and having to watch things happen around him that he could not fix as he was so prone to do. This upped the stakes. When Harry went back into the castle to fight it wasn't as a fellow student, it was as a fugitive on the run for a year. The shouts and gasps of, "Harry Potter!' became all the more meaningful for that.
 

I noticed that Harry had to leave people behind a lot. He wanted to go back to help those at the wedding, but Hermione told him that he couldn't help, he'd just put his life at risk. I think what Dumbledore knew, and what he tried to communicate to Harry, was that they were at war, and people have to be sacrificed, sad as that was.

And yes, I would have liked a little more at the end with Ginny. I would have liked him to stay in the Great Hall at the end to react to the death there. He could have greaved with those he loved for those he loved.
 

About the Imperius Curse, it wasn't Harry who pulled a rabbit out of his hat, it was JK Rowling that did so.

I have nothing bad to say about JK Rowling and I think she's a great inspiration, but I did get the distinct impression reading the last two books, most especially DH, that she was getting tired and bored of the world. We'll call it writer's fatigue. I felt it in the work which, frankly, could have been better if she'd had the energy she had when she started the series.

[This message has been edited by Zero (edited July 31, 2007).]
 

I think Harry employed the forbidden curses (since book 5 when he used the cruciatas curse) because those were the time he was either the most angry or afraid. In book 7, when he used the imperius curse at gringott's, I think he was just desperate.
 

On reflection back on all seven books, magic was really only difficult if it needed to be plot-wise. If it stretched the books out, or illuminated a character scene, then people were shown using it as beginners and generally failing. If the magic was needed at a later point in the book, it was available and useful.

For example, I don't recall anyone really mastering silent spells, but either everyone was suddenly using them, or no one needed them even though in book 6 a fairly big deal was made about casting spells and charms silently.

Jayson Merryfield
 

In a polite civilized society you stun or disarm, in war you kill or otherwise neutralize your enemy.

The prohibition of the use of the unforgiveable curses also loses some weight when you have a price on your head and the entire force is looking for you.

Also the ministry itself, even before Voldemort too it over, allowed for the use of the unforgiveable curses in defense of yourself. Heck even Dumbledore allowed the false Moody to use them in from of the DADA class...so I don't think they were quiet as unforgiveable as Hermione acted.

I read it more as the same reaction someone from a heavilly gun regulated society would react if the visited a very liberal gun culture like that here in Alabama or Texas.

 

I do agree, though, that the rules of magic were ill-defined and that it was never clear what made spells difficult or easy, or what the cost of the magic was. I do suspect, though, that when a spell wasn't all that integral plotwise that it's not so much that they didn't struggle as that you didn't see the struggle. For example, they may have needed a few tries to get the silencing charm right but since it wasn't a life or death matter, who really cares?

I also go the impression that once they mastered the theory and the basics that they could handle new spells much more easily.

 

We like the world to make coherent-logical-consistent sense from book to book, but in hers her magic system flies in the face of any convention and is simple whatever she wanted it to be, whenever she wanted it to be that.

Normally I'd say that puts off reader, but in the case of JK Rowling I think it triples her fan base. Somehow her world is so exotic and so fascinating that the strange things that happen (including the randomness of the magic) feel so compelling and hard to capture that even the characters of the world accept there is more to their science of magic than any of them know (because of course it is random) so what we trade for consistency we gain in mystery and in the case of HP it is something people like. Which is something I've never encountered before.
 

The Avadah Kadvarah curse is an unblockable killing cures. So, if you're a death eater with no qualms about killing, why not use it? Why, when Molly and Belatrix were dueling, didn't Belatrix just unleash AK on Molly and be done with it? In that case it even said they were dueling to kill. At the ministry, when the OOTP came to Harry's aid, why was Serius the only fatality? In the book, it wasn't even clear if the curse that got him was AK.

I mean, the thing about her world isn't that there are no rules...it's that the rules are only insinuated rather than clear. The students go to school for 7 years to learn magic, after all, and even then the most learned wizards need to do some additional study on their own. But I would really have loved to know a few basics.
 

Off topic:
At the end of book 6, Snape told Harry he won't be able to beat him until he learned how to close his mind and shut his mouth. I assumed that Harry would really be beefing up on nonverbal spells on occlumency. It seems, though, that it really didn't matter. If it were me, I would be doing everything I could to survive. Especially during all those times they were camping. Hold a mini-DA meeting! Don't you want to be your best before you face Voldemort?
 

As to the AK spell, I took Rowling's descriptions to imply that magical dueling was a lot like fencing or boxing. You can't really lead with your right in boxing (for example) because it creates an opening that your opponent can exploit with a quicker (but less powerful, probably) punch. I thought Rowling described magical dueling in a similar way; they traded and parried faster spells back and forth, looking for an opening where they could use something like AK without fear of being hurt themselves.
 

I think the rules should/could have been clearer, and I have the sneaky suspicion that there really weren't many rules other than the cardinal rule, "if JK wants it that way, that's how it is."
 

1. Magic requires a wand, except when it doesn't
2. Spells must be verbalized, except when they don't
3. Verbal spells are easy to defend against, except when they aren't
4. Complicated magic can only be used by very powerful wizards or witches, except when mediocre wizards and witches use it in mundane daily applications or very young wizards use it without wands or training (see rule 1)
5. Spells are straightforward and have a single, identifiable effect, except those cast by Dumbledore or Voldemort, which aren't bound by any of the rules above or below
6. Ambush tactics can never be used in magical combat, except when they are
7. Any spell capable of killing or permanently disabling an opponent must never be attempted until an appropriate amount of fighting has occurred
8. Even though spells must be aimed, and wands do not have sights, they rarely miss, even against moving targets--except when they do.
 

Wow!

I agree with your observations. Interestingly, however, it hasn't impacted my enjoyment of the books! Even looking at all those adverbs paired with dialogue attributions didn't (much) bother me.

The power of the story - that's what I get from this. I'm reading Stephen King's On Writing right now and he talks almost reverently about the power of the story. Might just give me a little more confidence in my own storytelling ability and make me worry about plot less...
 

Which, by the way, isn't really true, but I see that with some writers. Such as JRR Tolkien, CS Lewis, and even to some extent, Steven King. I think JK Rowling is either at this near-god/goddess status, or pretty close. Try criticizing her to most fans and you'll get a lot of backlash. She's perfect, so leave her alone

It also doesn't hurt that her name is in initial form.

JK
JRR
CS
ETC,ETC
 

I don't think these writers are above criticism, but when you hear them dismissed across the board as terrible writers over and over and over at some point you've got to say, "wait a minute, these people are delighting millions of readers, they must be doing a heck of lot more right then they are wrong."

Using Rowling as an example, I see her do many things that we as aspiring writers tell ourselves we should never, never, never, ever do. But I read and enjoyed all the books anyway (although the very end of the last one wasn't what I hoped for). So I could make a big deal of some of her tortured-sounding (to my American ear) adverbs in dialogue tags and say she's terrible, and truly she would get run out of any critiquing group I have ever been a part of, but saying that would be disingenuous on my part. Why? Because the bottom line is I had a good experience reading the books.

What I've learned is that an imperfectly polished gem is worth more than a turd with a blinding polish.

I have often been guilty of paying more attention to the polish than what is underneath, especially in my own writing.

But I'm wandering. I think the thing that gets fans of any writer riled is when people dismiss the works across the board. It's the case of two extremes. On one side you have people saying I didn't like this, therefore it is terrible and has no redeeming value; and on the other people saying I enjoyed this, therefore it is perfect and above criticism. People that step into such discussions with mixed, guarded opinions often get ground in between those wheels.
 

However, if you're trying to make meaningful criticisms to a mob of barely literate fans... well, that's like shouting "FOOTBALL SUCKS!" at the superbowl.
 

That, ladies and gentlemen, is wisdom.