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.

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.

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.

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.

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)?

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.

---

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.