Jeph Jacques's comics discussion forums

Fun Stuff => ENJOY => Topic started by: Mnementh on 20 Jul 2007, 07:59

Title: Harry Potter and The Deathly Hallows (w/Spoilers)
Post by: Mnementh on 20 Jul 2007, 07:59
Placeholder for discussion after we read the book.  I'll open it saturday around noon.

I finished the book about a half hour ago.  I couldn't make it the whole way through before falling asleep, hence the delay in opening this thread.  I seemed to have missed where Tonks and Lupin died  :-(.   I paged back, but couldn't find it.
Title: Re: Harry Potter and The Deathly Hallows (w/Spoilers)
Post by: HeyBickley on 21 Jul 2007, 11:30
Is Snape dead? *whimper*
Title: Re: Harry Potter and The Deathly Hallows (w/Spoilers)
Post by: yelley on 21 Jul 2007, 15:08
i finished about an hour ago...

i was lucky enough to have someone post on my lj a list of serious spoilers, so i knew who was going to die.... which sucked, but honestly detracted little from the story since i found it so compelling. i was happy to see that my expectations - yes, dumbledore really is dead, yes, there really was reason to trust snape, yes, harry really does need to die in order for voldemort to be killed - were correct, for the most part. really not sure how i feel about harry's resurrection... in a way it seemed like a sort of cop-out to save the beloved title character. but we'll see how i feel about it after i've re-read the book and had more time to think about it. the whole deathly hallows plot line... i thought was brilliant and a complete surprise to me.

this is the second book to ever make me cry while i read it (the first was the ending of the grapes of wrath by steinbeck, for the curious). not just cry, but sob audibly when fred died and through most of the last 2 chapters.

i could have done without the epilogue though... yeah yeah harry and ginny, ron and hermione, we know. all those names and dialogue confused me a bit... not sure who was saying what for a while, but that might have just been because my eyes were so full of tears still that i couldn't see properly...
Title: Re: Harry Potter and The Deathly Hallows (w/Spoilers)
Post by: Mnementh on 21 Jul 2007, 15:52
The epilogue wasn't necessary, but I don't feel that it detracted from the rest of the story.

I'm actually glad she went the Dallas-esque route with Harry, I feel like killing him off would have been rather cliched in many ways, and I don't think he was a tragic enough figure for it to have felt right.  As far as the rest of the story, I'm happy that most of my expectations were right.  Harry was the last Horcrux, Snape was Dumbledore's man the whole time.  I'm really the saddest about Tonks dying I think, though I was surprised about Madeye.

I think that, in retrospect, Draco's character was underdeveloped throughout the series.

This really amused me for some reason: When Ginny takes Harry off alone on his birthday and then Ron walks in.  I think it was artfully worded enough to go over the heads of the younger part of audience, but the more I think about it, it was a cliched yet horribly subversive allusion to sexin'.
Title: Re: Harry Potter and The Deathly Hallows (w/Spoilers)
Post by: sandysmilinstrange on 21 Jul 2007, 16:01
I was right about Snape! HA! (Not that anybody on here was arguing with me, but I've defended him so much to my meat life friends that I go blue in the face)

I didn't mind the epilogue. What does the world have against happy bordering on sappy endings? After the last few books, I could have handled a hundred pages of nothing but good stuff happening.

Things I loved:

"NOT MY DAUGHTER, YOU BITCH!"

Ron's moment with the locket.

Percy's return (even though he has been a total toolbox throughout the past two books, I actually ended up forgiving him as quickly as Mrs. Weasley)

Narcissa's exchange with Harry (Loved, loved LOVED that her son was most important to her, even though it could have cost her).

Kreacher's story/redemption.

I'll have more to say later, I'm sure, but right now I feel a little drained.
Title: Re: Harry Potter and The Deathly Hallows (w/Spoilers)
Post by: yelley on 21 Jul 2007, 16:25
i've reread the last few chapters, and i agree with you dan. no way should she have killed off harry. especially since these are, i feel i forget sometimes, children's books. and draco had almost no part in this book... book 6 looked promising for his character, but really i think throughout the series there could have been more done with him. especially towards the end of this book after they save him twice...

i also really liked kreacher's redemption and ron's destruction of the horcrux.

some wtf moments for me.... hedwig's death (was this necessary?), madeye's death (i really thought he'd be there at the end), dobby's death (was this necessary?), both lupin and tonks dying unceremoniously (really i think bigger characters like this deserve something more than a brief mention that can easily be missed, and why both of them?), wormtail's magic hand killing him (serious wtf moment)

especially with hedwig and dobby... i don't understand the point of killing off these characters that could easily be brushed aside for the remainder of the story instead. hedwig stays at the burrow. dobby goes back to the hogwarts kitchen and fights with the elves in the last battle. why kill these minor characters with the cutesy fan following? it just seems cruel.
Title: Re: Harry Potter and The Deathly Hallows (w/Spoilers)
Post by: Mnementh on 21 Jul 2007, 16:32
I don't think they're children's books anymore.  I think she was assuming that the audience was growing older along with the characters when she wrote them, hence the fact that they got so much darker and longer.  I think that unnecessary killing off of characters like Dobby and Wormtail and Moody was to create a sense that it really was a war and that plenty of people were dying on all sides.

As someone else on another forum said: "Rowling's a bloody-minded murdress, isn't she? I don't think I've seen a body count of main characters that long since Hamlet."
Title: Re: Harry Potter and The Deathly Hallows (w/Spoilers)
Post by: yelley on 21 Jul 2007, 16:39
i know it's been something like 10 years since the first book came out, most of the people who read them then are nearing their 20s now, but that doesn't change the fact that a lot of the readers are still children. i saw plenty of sleepy looking 7 year olds with their parents waiting to get their copies at midnight. i knew that the book would be fraught with death, but i think she should have spared the deaths that would have more of an impact on children. does that make sense? i realize the need to make it seem like a real war with lots of death on both sides, but i think more little kids would be sad about the death of hedwig and dobby than the death of, purely for example, professor flitwick or sprout.
Title: Re: Harry Potter and The Deathly Hallows (w/Spoilers)
Post by: ThePQ4 on 21 Jul 2007, 16:51
I have never before cried while reading a Harry Potter book...but this one, I totally broke down like four times. I'll write down my feelings propperly after I've a bit time of mull it over...
Title: Re: Harry Potter and The Deathly Hallows (w/Spoilers)
Post by: Ozymandias on 21 Jul 2007, 17:07
I didn't hate the epilogue at all.

I think ending at the headmaster's office would've been lame. It needs an epilogue to say "and they all lived happily after after" and it made me much happier to read it.

I loved it. Cover to cover. I didn't expect her to have the ability to close the book and not leave me wanting more while also not just being horribly disappointing.

She did. I'm monumentally impressed.
Title: Re: Harry Potter and The Deathly Hallows (w/Spoilers)
Post by: Mnementh on 21 Jul 2007, 17:59
Indeed, she is wealthier than the Queen, and has been since 2003.  In fact, she was then the 122nd richest person in Britain.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/2979033.stm
Title: Re: Harry Potter and The Deathly Hallows (w/Spoilers)
Post by: KharBevNor on 21 Jul 2007, 18:06
I seemed to have missed where Tonks and Lupin died  :-(.   I paged back, but couldn't find it.

yeah U did that. I was akll like WAIT TONKS AND LUPIN?! it is like one sentence. you do not even see them die 'on screen' as it were.

Of cours e hedwig had to die thjey couldn't have lugged the fucking owl around for thw whole book. Kill the cute characters i say!











I cried about dobby and during snapes memories :(
Title: Re: Harry Potter and The Deathly Hallows (w/Spoilers)
Post by: Ozymandias on 21 Jul 2007, 18:13
Yeah, I wish Tonks and Lupin had gotten a bigger death scene.

And that Tonks had survived. :(

And, yeah. Snape's redemption made him an even more tragic figure than I was expecting. Poor dude loved Lily his whole damn life. Right up until his dying breath, everything he did he did because he loved her. :(
Title: Re: Harry Potter and The Deathly Hallows (w/Spoilers)
Post by: Caiphana on 21 Jul 2007, 19:11
Questions I have:

Um, wasn't Harry Teddy's godfather? Kay, who raised Teddy?

Where was Crookshanks.. he was mentioned briefly near the whomping willow, but, uh, where was he the whole book?

I thought the sorting hat was destroyed... well, it was lit on fire, and Neville threw it off his head onto to the ground. I doubt anyone would have been bothered to put it out when, you know, Lordy Thingy was there and Harry was "dead". Why was Harry's son so worried about where it would place him, then? I assumed at first that it was because they had done away with the sorting the traditional way, and it was just random (like many have predicted in fan fics), but Harry tells him that the hat gives you a choice.

I have more little "....what about ____?" questions, but I'm being pestered to get off the computer.




Oh, but I like it. Thought it was great. I got a lot of things right, and that happified me. However, to me, it read like a fan fic. A GREAT fic, but a fic. It didn't sound like JKR basically the whole time.
Title: Re: Harry Potter and The Deathly Hallows (w/Spoilers)
Post by: Ozymandias on 21 Jul 2007, 19:13
Andromeda Tonks probably raised Teddy.

Crookshanks was probably with Hermione's parents.

Maybe they made a new one.
Title: Re: Harry Potter and The Deathly Hallows (w/Spoilers)
Post by: Caiphana on 21 Jul 2007, 19:14
That's possible.

I can't recall for certain, but I think he was at The Burrow.

....mkay. I thought the whole cool thing about the hat was that it was Gryffindor's hat, and the founders had all bewitched it together.
Title: Re: Harry Potter and The Deathly Hallows (w/Spoilers)
Post by: ThePQ4 on 21 Jul 2007, 19:50
Okay, now that I've had a bit of sleep...

Crookshanks was, I am fairly certain, left at the burrow. He was mentioned towards the beginning of the book, I think.  And as for the Sorting Hat: Just because something starts on fire, doesn't mean it's destroyed. The hat was ragged to begin with --or perhaps it is someone else's hat with a new sorting enchantment. We'll never know, I guess.

I liked the epilogue --the names of their children (well, Harry and Ginny's) were a little cliche, and I was left wondering who Victoire was? (My Mom and I thought Percy's daughter perhaps?), and it does kind of mean that it is really over. J.K. can finally rest, and she doesn't have to write anymore. She's closed it, and it's done with.

And, while I am not typically an emotional person --I will admit I cried several times while reading, with each death after Dobby's, particularly after Fred's, and then subsequently after you "see" that Remus and Tonks have died. Tears for Severus (though he's my favorite), didn't come until the end of The Prince's Story --which I think is my favorite part of the book. I didn't cry when Harry "died", obviously (I knew he'd live having seen a peek at the epilogue), and I liked Dumbledore's parting words, "Of course it's happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?" It made me laugh.

--And that's the other thing I loved about the book --inparticular of the Weasleys. They always could find the humor (case and point: George looses his hear, and can joke about it with Fred) and attempt to lighten the spirits of those around them, and Ron does the same thing, such as when he says, "If we die saving him, I'm going to kill you," to Harry when he attempts to save Malfoy, Crabbe, and Goyle in the Room of Requirement.

Anyway, I best stop while I'm ahead, or I could go on about it for hours and no one wants that, but let me add a big "I concur!" about Mrs. Weasley and her, "NOT MY DAUGHTER, YOU BITCH!" line. Classic.
Title: Re: Harry Potter and The Deathly Hallows (w/Spoilers)
Post by: TrekkieTechie on 21 Jul 2007, 20:05
Victoire is Bill and Fleur's daughter.

The only time I came close to crying with this one was Dudley's farewell. Which was kind of disappointing, as four through six all had me break down. Dumbledore still gets me in OotP with his "I rather thought you had enough responsibility to be going on with" line... Though I am deeply impressed with JKR for pulling off the Concerned!Dudley.
Title: Re: Harry Potter and The Deathly Hallows (w/Spoilers)
Post by: Eris on 21 Jul 2007, 22:23
It took me a few goes to read this one. I seemed kind of slow at the start, plus I kept getting interrupted. Dudley saying "He's not coming with us?" was so sweet, it really shows how naive he is. I went "oh no!" a few times throughout the story when people died, but didn't get emotional, which surprised me, as Fred was one of my favourite characters, dammit. I reckon CmonMiracle's ideas would have worked really well as the last book, and probably would have preferred reading them. I still enjoyed it but it was obvious that I've moved on and am nowhere near as interested in Harry Potter than I was for OotP.


The only thought I had about Albus Severus is that it is a stupid name. Really obvious (even without people's spoilers around here), which made me groan. I understand that the epilogue worked, (and was probably needed) but it still seemed clichéd to the degree that it made me wince. I could imagine how it would be in the movies, with the soppy music playing, which trivialised it. If I read it again I probably won't read that part again.
Title: Re: Harry Potter and The Deathly Hallows (w/Spoilers)
Post by: Caiphana on 21 Jul 2007, 22:40
Oh, I noticed something as I was re-reading the book... when they're all at the Burrow just after Mad-Eye died.... there were thirteen of them. When thirteen dine together, the first to rise will be the first to die. Lupin left first (with Charlie) to recover Mad-Eye's body.
Title: Re: Harry Potter and The Deathly Hallows (w/Spoilers)
Post by: E. Spaceman on 22 Jul 2007, 06:12
I think this was my favourite book off the series. Overall i enjoyed the darker mood and the flaring of emotions and tempers. I was not too surprised by the deaths and rather enjoyed the way they were presented; not every death is going to be dramatic, in reality most won't be. Specially in a situation like that (the good ol' fashioned "Final Showdown"), when people start dropping like flies the time devoted to each should be brief, i am quite impressed by Rowling's not turning the thing into a sob fest. The whole denouement felt a bit pointless and corny (which up until that point the book had avoided pretty well) to me, but i guess it makes sense for the kids. Of course, if i had it my way, Nagini would have been disposed earlier (maybe by Snape) and the book would have ended at the end of chapter 34, with maybe the following chapter as an epilogue (with some modifications of course)
Title: Re: Harry Potter and The Deathly Hallows (w/Spoilers)
Post by: LeeZion on 22 Jul 2007, 15:34
So many great moments in the book and a few weak spots. I was disappointed in the epilogue for all the questions it didn't answer. For example, whatever happened to Umbridge? Now that Kingsley Shacklebolt is in charge of the Ministry, presumably she got chucked out unceremoniously. But we don't get to see it. She deserved her disgrace, and that would have been fun to read.

Also, what has Potter been doing for the past two decades? Presumably, he has chosen a quiet life, but doing what? Does he get fan mail? How many people call on him for assistance?

Have the elves been emancipated? Did Kreacher choose to stay with Harry or live at Hogwarts? What happened to Winky?

What did Malfoy choose to do with himself? What lessons did he learn?

I guess Rowling is saving all that for her next book.

On another note, this is my 500th post. Yay!
Title: Re: Harry Potter and The Deathly Hallows (w/Spoilers)
Post by: Lines on 22 Jul 2007, 18:05
Ok. This book was awesome. I was completely shocked when she killed Hedwig, Mad Eye (well, that she did it so early), Fred, Dobby, and Tonks. Especially Fred, as he and George are my favorites. What bothered me more though was how little she said anything about George's reaction (unless I missed that). I'll probably re-read it though, because I probably missed some things due to being so excited about actually reading it.

Things I liked: The whole plot and adventure, with horcruxes vs. hallows. We finally found out about Kreacher and his transformation. The radio show. Narcissa lying about Harry's death for her son. Mrs. Weasley calling Bellatrix a bitch. (Hell yes.) Snape's memories. Aberforth. The whole tone of it - much darker and downright scary at moments. Dudley's change towards Harry.

Things I didn't like: Some of the deaths I felt were a little pointless, like Hedwig and Dobby. I didn't really get Lupin's behavior in this book. The epilogue didn't really help anything other than to show people got married and had kids and leaves it too open, considering she doesn't want to write any more books. The epilogue also doesn't tie up any loose ends, like what happens with the Dursley's, Hermione's parents, et cetera. Umbridge - I wanted to reach through my book and punch her she was so disgusting. (She was well written, but I hate her so much. Stealing Moody's eye, ew.)
Title: Re: Harry Potter and The Deathly Hallows (w/Spoilers)
Post by: jeph on 22 Jul 2007, 20:14
It sure was a Harry Potter book!

Reading the whole thing in a day felt like the mental equivalent to eating six Big Macs in one sitting.
Title: Re: Harry Potter and The Deathly Hallows (w/Spoilers)
Post by: Ally on 22 Jul 2007, 21:29
Okay, I'm about to get really cheesy here.

I really liked it. I've been reading these books since I was about 7, I think, so they hold a special place in my heart. And while I stood there completely unamused while lots of people were rocking out to the terrible music of Harry and the Potters on Friday night (they just don't do it for me), nostalgia and the sense of excitement really worked for me. And right now it feels good to remember my 11th birthday and like, actually waiting for the letter, and having my dad imitate Hagrid's voice for me when I was in second grade, and years and years of debates with my friends about which house we'd be in.

So Daniel, I disagree, it still felt like a kid's book to me. But I still feel like a kid (Jeph you are way old, don't deny it). Uncle Tom's Cabin is glaring at me from my dresser and junior year honors English fast approaches, and a satisfying end to this era was what I needed.
Title: Re: Harry Potter and The Deathly Hallows (w/Spoilers)
Post by: Ally on 22 Jul 2007, 21:41
Wait, how did Neville get the sword?

EDIT: Oh, that makes sense.
Title: Re: Harry Potter and The Deathly Hallows (w/Spoilers)
Post by: TrekkieTechie on 22 Jul 2007, 21:43
See, I don't think it read like the other books. Her style changed too much for it to feel like anything other than a well-written fanfic.

And I wondered about that too, Ally. Apparently the Sorting Hat can summon the sword from wherever it is at the moment -- I had always assumed it was stored somehow inside the Hat. The look on Griphook's face must have been priceless when it disappeared...
Title: Re: Harry Potter and The Deathly Hallows (w/Spoilers)
Post by: axerton on 22 Jul 2007, 22:37
As you can probably get from the avatar I loved it.

Am I the only one who found house elves going postal with carving knives laugh out loud funny.

I found the dragon escape a little over the top, and I also found the "we're wandering around with one horcrux and no ideas" very very boggy.

As for the epilogue, I get the feeling that JK really likes the amount of fan fiction around so she had to leave a lot of stuff uncannoned so that it could continue. The only two things I disliked it for was that it didn't show Luna's future and there was nothing about how George was coping without his twin.

I was really worried that having planned an entire 7th book fanfiction and written  70, 000 words of it I would dislike the book if it didn't stick to my storyline. But it went pretty damn far from it (I placed horcruxes in the orphanage and in the tomb of a once great dark witch and put the locket into the department of mysteries, leading to a confrontation with Voldemort there and Harry's eventual success by luring him into the room of love and he dies like quirrle did)  But I still loved it.

As for tears, I only cried when dobby died and got a bit teary when Mrs Weasley went up against Bellatrix because that seemed to be when fred's death really hit me.

Oh, I noticed something as I was re-reading the book... when they're all at the Burrow just after Mad-Eye died.... there were thirteen of them. When thirteen dine together, the first to rise will be the first to die. Lupin left first (with Charlie) to recover Mad-Eye's body.
Unfortunately Fred died before Lupin.
Title: Re: Harry Potter and The Deathly Hallows (w/Spoilers)
Post by: Elizzybeth on 23 Jul 2007, 01:57
I'm probably outnumbered, but I actually feel that J.K. Rowling's writing has improved over the course of the series (and, in particular, that her internal dialogues have become less clunky).

I was pleasantly frustrated by the last chapter.  Though the chick-flick-and-romance-novel-loving part of me was spinning in happy little circles, the rest of me was shouting, "What?!  'All was well'?!  She might as well have said, 'And they all lived happily ever after!'  At least I coud have chalked that down to irony..."

I didn't cry during any of the books.  Does that make me less of a woman?
Title: Re: Harry Potter and The Deathly Hallows (w/Spoilers)
Post by: TheFuriousWombat on 23 Jul 2007, 07:02
I agree with that. The writing is definitely a lot better than it used to be. This is probably my favorite book in the series (perhaps second behind number three). I was pretty surprised by the darkness of this book. I know a lot of readers are older but a lot are also little kids and they aren't going to take well to the deaths of such lovable characters as Hedwig, Fred, Lupin, Tonks, and Dobby. Of course it's good that LeStrange and Pettigrew died but it's still very dark. When you have people getting ears blown off or tortured while their soon to be boyfriend screams in distress, you know you're not really reading a kids book anymore. On top of that the swearing, while obviously realistic, also surprised me. I liked it because it made the books feel more accurate but again, I can imagine a lot of parents bitching about it b/c of how it's "corrupting" their poor children. I really enjoyed the book. Sure the resurrection at the end was a bit of a cheap trick and kinda shows a lack of great writing ability and the epilogue was pretty cheesy but that didn't make much of a difference. This is probably the best and by far the darkest and most intense book in the series which, for me, was a very good thing. I'm just dreading going to work at camp this week because it's full of little kids.
Title: Re: Harry Potter and The Deathly Hallows (w/Spoilers)
Post by: Ernest on 23 Jul 2007, 08:09
I am ridiculously unsatisfied with this book.  The rhythm that was present in the previous books was absent in this one.  They spend the first half of the book basically not doing anything, and when the story finally picks up, it's too late to adequately wrap up all the loose ends, so we come out with some stupid deaths and some really quick explanations.  I have to admit, though, the King's Cross chapter was quite good.  And the epilogue was not nearly as long as it should have been.
Title: Re: Harry Potter and The Deathly Hallows (w/Spoilers)
Post by: TheFuriousWombat on 23 Jul 2007, 08:14
That's not unfounded actually. They did seem to repeat themselves a lot and the writing did the same. We didn't really need so much aimless wandering. A couple of scenes, maybe a chapter or two, of randomly getting no where and bickering would have sufficed. I think a good chunk of pages from this section could have been cut out and I wouldn't have really missed them.
Title: Re: Harry Potter and The Deathly Hallows (w/Spoilers)
Post by: TrekkieTechie on 23 Jul 2007, 08:22
I'm a little bemused by everyone talking about how "this one isn't a kiddie book. The series began with a double murder, and someone's died in every book since GoF.

I'm also having a hard time understanding how people could enjoy JKR's new writing style. For me at least, that was half of the Potter series' charm.

Oh, I noticed something as I was re-reading the book... when they're all at the Burrow just after Mad-Eye died.... there were thirteen of them. When thirteen dine together, the first to rise will be the first to die. Lupin left first (with Charlie) to recover Mad-Eye's body.
Unfortunately Fred died before Lupin.

Except, since we never see Lupin die, we don't know that he died second. axerton, where are you hosting your fic?
Title: Re: Harry Potter and The Deathly Hallows (w/Spoilers)
Post by: Ernest on 23 Jul 2007, 08:23
I think a good chunk of pages from this section could have been cut out and I wouldn't have really missed them.

Those pages should have been spent doing things that actually fucking mattered, like finding out what was up with the veil or something.
Title: Re: Harry Potter and The Deathly Hallows (w/Spoilers)
Post by: LeeZion on 23 Jul 2007, 09:16
Harry Potter slashfics I'd like to see:

1) Voldemort/Bellatix.
2) Crouch/Winky.
3) Draco/Polyjuiced Goyle/Polyjuiced Crabbe.

All of which are theoretically possible based on what we know of the Potter universe. And if any of these made you say, "Ewww," these are no worse than some of the other Potter slashfics out there.

Just sayin'.
Title: Re: Harry Potter and The Deathly Hallows (w/Spoilers)
Post by: Ally on 23 Jul 2007, 09:30
If this thread degenerates into a list of slashfics that people would like to see I will be one unhappy chica.

Although at the beginning, when Harry was reading the article about Rita Skeeter's book, and she was like "yeah I totes wrote a chapter about Harry/Dumbledore because that shit is hot" was anyone else like ":o wtf?"
Title: Re: Harry Potter and The Deathly Hallows (w/Spoilers)
Post by: IronOxide on 23 Jul 2007, 09:52
Am I the only one who appreciated how Lupin and Tonks died in the book? I had to read the page twice to make sure that I read into what was being said correctly, but that affected me. It makes it more realistic in the way it was presented. If you're following Harry through the whole battle (and the entirety  of the books), then it makes sense that some people would die when he didn't see them. The brief way that they presented their death left me to think about their kid for a minute before I kept reading.

I also join the ranks of people who were sad as hell when Dobby died. That was some depressing shit.
Title: Re: Harry Potter and The Deathly Hallows (w/Spoilers)
Post by: Mnementh on 23 Jul 2007, 09:58
If this thread degenerates into a list of slashfics that people would like to see I will be one unhappy chica.

Yes, please don't encourage it.
Title: Re: Harry Potter and The Deathly Hallows (w/Spoilers)
Post by: 0bsessions on 23 Jul 2007, 10:24
I was also pleased with Tonks and Lupin's impersonal deaths, and that's saying a lot considering that Lupin's one of my favorite characters (Fred too, god Rowling is a bastard). Harry can't be everywhere at once and the sting of coming back and seeing all these dead and thinking "I should've been there, maybe..." is so much worse than watching them die.

Am I the only one that was seriously saddened by Colin's death? He was, overall, a footnote to the series as a whole, but he was always one of the most innocent seeming characters. Well played, throughout.

In terms of the questioning of where Teddy Lupin ended up, I get the feeling it's obvious that he was raised by Harry (Likely with help from Andromeda Tonks and the Weasleys). Harry was Teddy's godfather and one must remember that he was born about midway through the year of the book, and would thus have been close to two full years out of Hogwarts by the timeframe of the epilogue.

One thing I'm wondering: Rowling said that a non-magic character would perform magic late in life. I never saw this occur. Did I miss this?
Title: Re: Harry Potter and The Deathly Hallows (w/Spoilers)
Post by: Dimmukane on 23 Jul 2007, 12:44
I think she was implying through the flashbacks that Petunia had some magic...
Title: Re: Harry Potter and The Deathly Hallows (w/Spoilers)
Post by: TheFuriousWombat on 23 Jul 2007, 12:56
Not that series is continuing with Harry as a main character, but Lupin and Tonks both died fighting against Voldermort and his forces. Harry's parents also died fighting against Voldemort. Both were infants at the time of their parents' demise. Anyone else seeing the potential for a spin off here? I'm not saying it's going to happen or even in the works in any shape but the parallels are interesting at least.
Title: Re: Harry Potter and The Deathly Hallows (w/Spoilers)
Post by: 0bsessions on 23 Jul 2007, 13:00
The statement was that someone would outright perform magic and I recall reading that she specifically stated it would not be Petunia. It'll take some work to track it down, as it was cited on Wikipedia, but all the prerelease speculation articles are gone now.
Title: Re: Harry Potter and The Deathly Hallows (w/Spoilers)
Post by: TheFuriousWombat on 23 Jul 2007, 13:08
There really aren't many non-magical characters. Did Filch do anything in the battle at Hogwarts? I didn't see this happen but he is a squib. I can't really think of anyone else it might be...
Title: Re: Harry Potter and The Deathly Hallows (w/Spoilers)
Post by: Caiphana on 23 Jul 2007, 14:32
Oh, I noticed something as I was re-reading the book... when they're all at the Burrow just after Mad-Eye died.... there were thirteen of them. When thirteen dine together, the first to rise will be the first to die. Lupin left first (with Charlie) to recover Mad-Eye's body.
Unfortunately Fred died before Lupin.
I'm not so sure about that. I don't have my book with me at the moment, but they were around the room of requirement, and Tonks asked if anyone's seen Remus. Someone said that the last they saw him, he was fighting Dolohov, and she runs off to find him. We see Dolohov later, so it follows that Dolohov killed Remus. I can't remember exactly where Fred died, but if it was after Tonks running off, looking for Remus, Remus died first. I'll check the book when I get home.
Title: Re: Harry Potter and The Deathly Hallows (w/Spoilers)
Post by: StaedlerMars on 23 Jul 2007, 16:22
Neville made me really happy.

EDIT: I also really want to see the final showdown on a big screen. If that is well done, that is going to be the coolest thing ever.
Title: Re: Harry Potter and The Deathly Hallows (w/Spoilers)
Post by: axerton on 23 Jul 2007, 17:03
Am I the only one that was seriously saddened by Colin's death? He was, overall, a footnote to the series as a whole, but he was always one of the most innocent seeming characters. Well played, throughout.

I was shocked to find him alive at all. I assumed he'd be in azkaban or dead because of the anti muggle born laws.

One thing I'm wondering: Rowling said that a non-magic character would perform magic late in life. I never saw this occur. Did I miss this?

All she said was that there would be a late bloomer and I think that was Neville really stepping up to take over the DA, then killing Nagini.
Speaking of Nagini I was hoping that she would become the new master of the Eldar wand because she had killed Snape thus forcing Voldemort to chose between his horcrux or the wand. 

http://www.fanfiction.net/s/2690781/1/Harry_Potter_and_the_Tomb_of_Libitina (http://www.fanfiction.net/s/2690781/1/Harry_Potter_and_the_Tomb_of_Libitina) There's the fic I referred to earlier if anyone's interested, it was aborted a few months ago with only 11 chapters written (up finding the first horcrux).
Title: Re: Harry Potter and The Deathly Hallows (w/Spoilers)
Post by: Ernest on 23 Jul 2007, 18:54
I'm thinking about writing an epilogue and mailing it to Rowling. 
Title: Re: Harry Potter and The Deathly Hallows (w/Spoilers)
Post by: TrekkieTechie on 23 Jul 2007, 19:20
That would be awesome.
Title: Re: Harry Potter and The Deathly Hallows (w/Spoilers)
Post by: Caiphana on 23 Jul 2007, 21:35
Oh, I noticed something as I was re-reading the book... when they're all at the Burrow just after Mad-Eye died.... there were thirteen of them. When thirteen dine together, the first to rise will be the first to die. Lupin left first (with Charlie) to recover Mad-Eye's body.
Unfortunately Fred died before Lupin.
I'm not so sure about that. I don't have my book with me at the moment, but they were around the room of requirement, and Tonks asked if anyone's seen Remus. Someone said that the last they saw him, he was fighting Dolohov, and she runs off to find him. We see Dolohov later, so it follows that Dolohov killed Remus. I can't remember exactly where Fred died, but if it was after Tonks running off, looking for Remus, Remus died first. I'll check the book when I get home.
Checked the book. I remembered correctly. Page 626, American version, Tonks asks Aberforth if he'd seen Remus. Harry says, "They'll be alright," 'though he knew they were empty words.'

Page 636, Fred dies.
Title: Re: Harry Potter and The Deathly Hallows (w/Spoilers)
Post by: Joseph on 23 Jul 2007, 22:58
As usual with Harry Potter, the story was fun, the writing was fairly dreadful.  I found it also crammed too full of useless things.  The wandering at the beginning lasted far too long; Rowling's writing it's strong enough to get her through periods where there isn't a ton of excitement.  The narrow escapes from Voldemort also happened way too often.  One or two would've been nice, but they just kept on happening, which was rather annoying.  I'm happy overall that she didn't kill Harry though, it just wouldn't have fit with how she set the books up to this point.  And I agree with Daniel, Draco needed a ton of development.

Oh, and the last half of the book was far too cluttered.  I think the length was about right, just used poorly.  I had fun reading it though.
Title: Re: Harry Potter and The Deathly Hallows (w/Spoilers)
Post by: Faker on 24 Jul 2007, 01:25
Well finished it last night and have to say it is probably one of the best of the series, maybe even the best. I agree with lots of people in that the epilogue was a bit too “happy ever after” for my liking but at the same time I understand that it was pretty much necessary.

Don’t agree with the Hedwig’s death was pointless argument, I think it gave a good sense that no character, no matter how major or minor, was safe over the course of what would follow.

I liked Snape’s redemption although part of me did want him to be evil, if only to show that Dumbledore could get some things wrong.

Other moments I liked were little things like Harry finding the picture of himself as a toddler zipping around on a toy broomstick, and the Mrs Weasley / Bellatrix moment, soon as I read THAT piece of dialogue my mind went straight to Ripley in Aliens!

As for tear jerking moments, obviously I’m too much of a bloody bloke to cry at a book but came close during Harry’s walk to the Forbidden Forest when his parents and Sirius’s “ghosts” are talking to him.
Title: Re: Harry Potter and The Deathly Hallows (w/Spoilers)
Post by: 0bsessions on 24 Jul 2007, 07:13
All she said was that there would be a late bloomer and I think that was Neville really stepping up to take over the DA, then killing Nagini.

Actually, I found it and it was most definitely about someone using magic quite late in life. Allegedly, though, this quote may have come before Half-Blood Prince, so it could have been referring to Merope Gaunt.

I liked Snape’s redemption although part of me did want him to be evil, if only to show that Dumbledore could get some things wrong.

Well, to be fair, we did get that idea. He was wrong about Grindelwald, if you recall. All in all, Dumbledore turned out to be kind of a prick.
Title: Re: Harry Potter and The Deathly Hallows (w/Spoilers)
Post by: pilsner on 24 Jul 2007, 08:24
Not to mention the whole "HAI AN EVIL ARTIFACT I WILL USE IT TO RESSURECT MY DEAD SISTER OH NOES I AM DYING" thing.  You can't get quite more fallible than using the repository of your arch-enemy's split soul to try to bring back the sister you were partially responsible for killing.  My favorite parts of the book were the revelations that Dumbledore was quite mistaken and far from blameless, and that Snape had probably suffered more than most to protect the students and bring down Voldemort.  Even if he was arguably doing it for the wrong reasons.

I am confident that Rowling's main motivation for that epilogue was to prevent other authors from adding books to the series later on.  She said pretty explicitly in interviews that she would do her best to prevent this from happening (probably thinking of Tolkein and Herbert) and frankly aside from killing off every major character or stating point blank "and so nothing interesting happened to anyone you care about in this story ever again", I don't see what else she could have done.

Not that this was stop an enterprising author from writing the "Albus Severus vs. Draco's kid" sequel where Albus has the invisibility cloak and Draco has a converted muggle gun that shoots fiendfire, but whatever.

Also: Harry with two wands after the duel against Voldemort?  Pimpin'
Title: Re: Harry Potter and The Deathly Hallows (w/Spoilers)
Post by: Storm Rider on 24 Jul 2007, 11:46
Anybody else get a really creepy stalker-ish vibe when Luna had the huge portraits of the Gryffindor kids with the word 'friends' repeated over and over?
Title: Re: Harry Potter and The Deathly Hallows (w/Spoilers)
Post by: TrekkieTechie on 24 Jul 2007, 11:50
Aw, I thought it was sad. Like, poor Luna has some friends now.

Of course, now whenever I read that passage, I will. Thanks so much.
Title: Re: Harry Potter and The Deathly Hallows (w/Spoilers)
Post by: Thene on 24 Jul 2007, 14:23
Anybody else find it funny how Ron tried to start a rivalry between his kids and Malfoy's kid? I found it pretty cool how Neville went on to become a teacher. I would have thought that for sure Hermione would be the transfiguration teacher or something. I always thought that after defeating Voldemort Harry would go on to play quiditch for England,but because of the lack of closure I never found out. I want her to write another book just so that I know what hapened during those two decades. I wanna know about teddy and the rebuilding of the society after the collapse of Voldemort.
Title: Re: Harry Potter and The Deathly Hallows (w/Spoilers)
Post by: Ernest on 24 Jul 2007, 14:26
As usual with Harry Potter, the story was fun, the writing was fairly dreadful.  I found it also crammed too full of useless things.  The wandering at the beginning lasted far too long; Rowling's writing it's strong enough to get her through periods where there isn't a ton of excitement.  The narrow escapes from Voldemort also happened way too often.  One or two would've been nice, but they just kept on happening, which was rather annoying.  I'm happy overall that she didn't kill Harry though, it just wouldn't have fit with how she set the books up to this point.  And I agree with Daniel, Draco needed a ton of development.

Oh, and the last half of the book was far too cluttered.  I think the length was about right, just used poorly.  I had fun reading it though.

That is exactly how I feel about the book.  Exactly.
Title: Re: Harry Potter and The Deathly Hallows (w/Spoilers)
Post by: Lines on 24 Jul 2007, 15:27
Anybody else get a really creepy stalker-ish vibe when Luna had the huge portraits of the Gryffindor kids with the word 'friends' repeated over and over?

Aww, I thought it was sweet. She probably had no friends until that year of OotP (her 4th?) and it showed how much she liked them. So kinda sweet and sad at the same time.
Title: Re: Harry Potter and The Deathly Hallows (w/Spoilers)
Post by: Ally on 24 Jul 2007, 16:15
I agree Linds! That part made me grin. I'm glad Luna didn't die; for some reason, I thought she would.

Also, if Victoire and Teddy had kids, would their children be full werewolves? Half-werewolves? No werewolf blood at all? Harry Potter genetics!
Title: Re: Harry Potter and The Deathly Hallows (w/Spoilers)
Post by: TrekkieTechie on 24 Jul 2007, 16:17
Ooh, sexy veelawolves.
Title: Re: Harry Potter and The Deathly Hallows (w/Spoilers)
Post by: 0bsessions on 24 Jul 2007, 16:25
I agree Linds! That part made me grin. I'm glad Luna didn't die; for some reason, I thought she would.

Also, if Victoire and Teddy had kids, would their children be full werewolves? Half-werewolves? No werewolf blood at all? Harry Potter genetics!

Indeterminable on the info we have. It's not explicitly stated whether or not Teddy actually had any werewolf tendencies, though it's unlikely as it likely would've come up as he was a few months old by the end of the main story. The kid would have good odds of being a metamorphmagus as he was one of those (As his hands changed sizes and hair changed color soon after birth.
Title: Re: Harry Potter and The Deathly Hallows (w/Spoilers)
Post by: LeeZion on 25 Jul 2007, 14:23
Anybody else get a really creepy stalker-ish vibe when Luna had the huge portraits of the Gryffindor kids with the word 'friends' repeated over and over?

Aww, I thought it was sweet. She probably had no friends until that year of OotP (her 4th?) and it showed how much she liked them. So kinda sweet and sad at the same time.

The sad thing about Luna is it's hard for her to make friends. She lost her mother, and her father's an eccentric with a fancy for Crumple Horned Snackacks or whatever they're called. She doesn't have too many role models, so it's no wonder she'd simultaneously be introverted AND speak so directly that it makes other people uncomfortable. The DA was one of the few places where she could shine, and where people accepted her despite her idiosyncracies.

Also, no mention of slashfics this time.
Title: Re: Harry Potter and The Deathly Hallows (w/Spoilers)
Post by: jesswah on 26 Jul 2007, 05:58
I really wanted the Crumple-Horned Snorkacks' existence to be proven in the end. There were so many things not explained or resolved properly, which, I guess adds to the 'mystique' of Harry Potter or whatever. But still, frustrating, it's nice to have most things wrapped up at the end of a series, even if not as specific as Crumple-Horned Snorkacks.
Title: Re: Harry Potter and The Deathly Hallows (w/Spoilers)
Post by: 0bsessions on 26 Jul 2007, 08:54
For those of you wondering, a couple things spilled:

Harry and Ron ended up as Aurors who "revolutionized the Auror department" and Hermoine ends up as a high ranking person in the department of magical law enforcement.

Source (http://video.msn.com/v/us/v.htm?g=3f4a5a9d-2c56-459e-b2b0-d9b0ef1aeec2&t=m3567&f=06/64&p=hotvideo_harrypotter_phoenix&fg=)

The original epilogue was originally going to be much more fleshed out, allegedly.

Also, we'd all heard about two characters dying that didn't originally and one that got a reprieve. While she's yet to say who wasn't originally going to die (Though, I'd assume it was Lupin and Tonks), the character who got a reprieve was Arthur Weasley, saying her original intent was to kill him in book five, presumably when Nagini attacked him. She says she couldn't go through with it.

The Hogwarts headmaster "Nineteen Years Later" is an unknown new person, as anyone else fitting the role would've gotten old by then.

She does plan to try and do the encyclopedia, but not anytime immediately soon.

NBC will be having an interview with Rowling that will likely answer more tomorrow morning, and they'll be showing a Harry Potter special at 7 PM (Easten Time US) on Sunday.

The more you know.

Edit: You know, I didn't realize it until just now, but with James dead already, Sirius' death in book five and all the deaths in this installment all five of the Marauders are dead.
Title: Re: Harry Potter and The Deathly Hallows (w/Spoilers)
Post by: Lyrics on 26 Jul 2007, 13:49
4 Marauders actually.

But like many others I wondered what harry did in the time between the end and the epilogue, why his kids don't know who he is to the wizarding world.  What happened to Umbridge?  What happened to the Cattermoles?
Title: Re: Harry Potter and The Deathly Hallows (w/Spoilers)
Post by: 0bsessions on 26 Jul 2007, 13:56
I wish I knew how to count.
Title: Re: Harry Potter and The Deathly Hallows (w/Spoilers)
Post by: axerton on 26 Jul 2007, 19:02
Shh, you can pretend you were counting Lilly as one of the Marauders.
Title: Re: Harry Potter and The Deathly Hallows (w/Spoilers)
Post by: Lyrics on 26 Jul 2007, 19:16
even though Lily hated James back then?
Lets say you were counting harry as #5 as he inherited the map anyway.
Title: Re: Harry Potter and The Deathly Hallows (w/Spoilers)
Post by: sha'mad conde on 26 Jul 2007, 19:25

Source (http://video.msn.com/v/us/v.htm?g=3f4a5a9d-2c56-459e-b2b0-d9b0ef1aeec2&t=m3567&f=06/64&p=hotvideo_harrypotter_phoenix&fg=)


Here is a more in depth text version of that same interview (http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/19959323), including what happens to Luna, Ron, Harry, and Herm's Jobs, etc.
Title: Re: Harry Potter and The Deathly Hallows (w/Spoilers)
Post by: pilsner on 26 Jul 2007, 22:09
Obsessions, that interview is hilarious.  Watch as JK scares the shit out of small children.
Title: Re: Harry Potter and The Deathly Hallows (w/Spoilers)
Post by: Bunnyman on 28 Jul 2007, 00:41
(http://i183.photobucket.com/albums/x4/PhoKuBunnyman/ubiquity.gif)
Title: Re: Harry Potter and The Deathly Hallows (w/Spoilers)
Post by: TheFuriousWombat on 28 Jul 2007, 09:02
Wow, I'm gonna have to sig that on forums where it's ok because that is the brilliant. Can't make this stuff up.
Title: Re: Harry Potter and The Deathly Hallows (w/Spoilers)
Post by: pilsner on 28 Jul 2007, 12:29
23% buy Venus in Furs by Leopold Von Sacher-Masoch.
Title: Re: Harry Potter and The Deathly Hallows (w/Spoilers)
Post by: the_shankmaster on 31 Jul 2007, 00:40
I was pretty mad at Tonks and Lupin.  One of them should have stayed back.  I mean, Tonks just lost her father.  Couldn't she see how her child would feel as an orphan?

I wanted Harry to stay dead, but there were still so many pages left, I knew JK would weasel her way out of it.  I didn't like that whole sequence where he talks to Dumbledore and I didn't like how he had the spirits or whatever they were of the people he loved with him when he went to his "death."  Who else gets that?  Who else gets to see their loved ones once they've died?  Then again, I've always hated Harry, so my opinion probably doesn't matter much.

Mad-Eye died so early that it didn't have any sort of impact on me.  I hadn't gotten myself emotionally involved in the book yet and she killed someone.

That Ginny/Harry scene on his birthday was horribly written.  JK has all the romance writing skills of George Lucas.

I agree with everyone else who said too much of the book was devoted to them doing nothing.

Does anyone else think this whole Deathly Hallows thing was kind of random?  I mean, I can't say how long she's been planning it, but the mention was kind of late.  Halfway through the book and suddenly there are these things that can cheat death that are gonna distract Harry from his quest.
Title: Re: Harry Potter and The Deathly Hallows (w/Spoilers)
Post by: Ernest on 31 Jul 2007, 07:31
Does anyone else think this whole Deathly Hallows thing was kind of random? 

Yes.  They were also trite and stupid.  I am so effing pissed at Rowling.  I feel like I still haven't read the seventh book because there's no way that could have been the seventh book.  Did I mention it feels like she wrote it in one fucking draft?  Bitch needs to give us a real final book.
Title: Re: Harry Potter and The Deathly Hallows (w/Spoilers)
Post by: 0bsessions on 31 Jul 2007, 07:43
Well, I was satisfied with it.
Title: Re: Harry Potter and The Deathly Hallows (w/Spoilers)
Post by: StaedlerMars on 31 Jul 2007, 08:00
Yeah, I really enjoyed it. I thought it was well written and the story was excellent.

It was a page turner, and I was happy about the conclusion.

(I also read somewhere that Ron now runs the weasley brothers store along with george, and Ginny plays for that all women quiditch team)
Title: Re: Harry Potter and The Deathly Hallows (w/Spoilers)
Post by: Dimmukane on 31 Jul 2007, 08:09
She's stated in an interview that Harry and Ron have revolutionized the Auror's department and Harry's head Auror, and Hermione is high up in the Magical Law Enforcement department.  She hasn't said anything about anyone else yet, at least not from that interview.
Title: Re: Harry Potter and The Deathly Hallows (w/Spoilers)
Post by: Ernest on 31 Jul 2007, 08:45
Well, I wish she'd included that in her half-assed epilogue!
Title: Re: Harry Potter and The Deathly Hallows (w/Spoilers)
Post by: 0bsessions on 31 Jul 2007, 08:48
You should really check the interview. She said that she originally had it in there, but felt that throwing too much into the brief epilogue would water it down.
Title: Re: Harry Potter and The Deathly Hallows (w/Spoilers)
Post by: TrekkieTechie on 31 Jul 2007, 08:52
She also explained that she wanted everyone who read it to be desperately confused.
Title: Re: Harry Potter and The Deathly Hallows (w/Spoilers)
Post by: 0bsessions on 31 Jul 2007, 08:54
Curious, maybe, but confused? There's nothing confusing in there. Confusion is sewn by things that don't add up. Everything that was presented added up fine, she just withheld some details.
Title: Re: Harry Potter and The Deathly Hallows (w/Spoilers)
Post by: Ernest on 31 Jul 2007, 09:05
You should really check the interview. She said that she originally had it in there, but felt that throwing too much into the brief epilogue would water it down.

Well, she was fucking wrong.
Title: Re: Harry Potter and The Deathly Hallows (w/Spoilers)
Post by: Lines on 31 Jul 2007, 09:33
No, you just want to know freaking everything. She plainly states that in the interview that she has to deal with fans like this, but it's not about what the fans want. It's about her writing the book. She's happy with it. I was satisfied with it. No offense, but it's a book, not the end of the world. Yes, she could have put more in there, but she didn't want to.
Title: Re: Harry Potter and The Deathly Hallows (w/Spoilers)
Post by: 0bsessions on 31 Jul 2007, 09:36
Yeah, the vast majority of people I've spoken to were overall satisfied with the book. First and foremost, it needs to be noted that this is kind of a children's book. He beat the bad guy, he got the girl, happily ever after...that's really all that needs to be said. Would you have preferred the like five endings Lord of the Rings had followed by 100 pages of appendices detailing with what became of Faromir's second cousin Ned? Happily ever after, the end!
Title: Re: Harry Potter and The Deathly Hallows (w/Spoilers)
Post by: Ernest on 31 Jul 2007, 12:00
Yes, she could have put more in there, but she didn't want to.

And I'm saying she should have.  I guess I should mention that I really wanted to like this book, I really did, and after I finished it I almost convinced myself that it was alright, but now I just hate it.  I'm so pissed she made such a half-assed effort to wrap everything up.  This is the final fucking book, for chrissakes!  If you've got to slave over one to make it really good, it's THIS FUCKING ONE! 

I wanted the epilogue to include Voldemort's trip to the afterlife.  For instance, maybe he talks to Dumbledore.
Title: Re: Harry Potter and The Deathly Hallows (w/Spoilers)
Post by: TrekkieTechie on 31 Jul 2007, 12:14
We did see Voldemort in the afterlife with Dumbledore.
Title: Re: Harry Potter and The Deathly Hallows (w/Spoilers)
Post by: StaedlerMars on 31 Jul 2007, 12:19
She's stated in an interview that Harry and Ron have revolutionized the Auror's department and Harry's head Auror, and Hermione is high up in the Magical Law Enforcement department.  She hasn't said anything about anyone else yet, at least not from that interview.

this (http://www.amny.com/entertainment/news/wire/sns-ap-potters-afterlife,0,2553036.story) seems to be more complete.
Title: Re: Harry Potter and The Deathly Hallows (w/Spoilers)
Post by: 0bsessions on 31 Jul 2007, 12:20
It's kind of hard to see much of Voldemort in the afterlife as his soul was utterly destroyed. That's what that little, pathetic thing was at King's Crossing. The way he made the Horcruxes, he assumed he'd live forever and thus essentially forfeited the possibility of an afterlife. This was made very clear through the course of books six and seven.

Edit: That second interview seems to contradict the former. She was previously saying that Ron was an Auror as well.
Title: Re: Harry Potter and The Deathly Hallows (w/Spoilers)
Post by: Ernest on 31 Jul 2007, 12:31
Maybe then she could have had a seen where Voldemort goes to King's Cross but Dumbledore tells him he can't go on and the souls of all his victims block his progress.
Title: Re: Harry Potter and The Deathly Hallows (w/Spoilers)
Post by: TrekkieTechie on 31 Jul 2007, 12:35
Dude, we saw what Voldemort's soul would look like in King's Cross. There were only two fragments left at the end, the one in Voldie and the one in Harry -- the other six fragments were vaped by Harry and Dumbledore. There isn't enough soul left for Voldemort to go to the afterlife.
Title: Re: Harry Potter and The Deathly Hallows (w/Spoilers)
Post by: Caiphana on 31 Jul 2007, 12:46
Let's get geeky for a minute, shall we?

When you create a Horcrux, half of your soul gets put in something else. Lord Thingy made seven Horcruxes (Harry was accidental; he thought that he had made his sixth and final Horcrux with Nagini, though she was really his seventh). First one left him with half a soul. Second with a quarter. Third with an eighth. Fourth with a sixteenth. Thirty-secondth. Sixty-fourth (that one was Harry... that weird baby thing was all that that portion was). Nagini had 1/128th of a soul. Lord Thingy HIMSELF had 1/256th of a soul. Wow.
Title: Re: Harry Potter and The Deathly Hallows (w/Spoilers)
Post by: Ernest on 31 Jul 2007, 12:50
Dude, we saw what Voldemort's soul would look like in King's Cross. There were only two fragments left at the end, the one in Voldie and the one in Harry -- the other six fragments were vaped by Harry and Dumbledore. There isn't enough soul left for Voldemort to go to the afterlife.

I liked the King's Cross chapter, but the random pathetic Voldemort soul was pretty lame.  Why would he be there?  He hadn't died yet or come close to death (as Harry just had)?
Title: Re: Harry Potter and The Deathly Hallows (w/Spoilers)
Post by: Caiphana on 31 Jul 2007, 12:52
Lord Thingy died just like Harry did. Remember? Both of them passed out. He went to the same place that Harry did, but he probably saw something completely different.
Title: Re: Harry Potter and The Deathly Hallows (w/Spoilers)
Post by: TrekkieTechie on 31 Jul 2007, 12:57
You're both a bit off. When the Dark Wanker hit Harry with the AK, it killed the soul fragment that was inside Harry. That's why there was a soul fragment with harry at King's Cross.
Title: Re: Harry Potter and The Deathly Hallows (w/Spoilers)
Post by: 0bsessions on 31 Jul 2007, 13:04
Trekkie's half correct. What was at King's Cross was not the little bit of soul in Harry, as that was destroyed by Voldemort's killing curse. That was what was left of Voldemort's soul in his own body. All that was left was that little bit and the horcrux in Nagini. There was really no hope of an afterlife for Voldemort.
Title: Re: Harry Potter and The Deathly Hallows (w/Spoilers)
Post by: TrekkieTechie on 31 Jul 2007, 13:13
Why the hell would the Dark Wanker's active soul fragment go to King's Cross with a dead Harry and a dead Dumbledore? Voldie was still using it. The fragment in King's Cross is the fragment that was in Harry, that was killed by Voldie's AK.
Title: Re: Harry Potter and The Deathly Hallows (w/Spoilers)
Post by: Ernest on 31 Jul 2007, 13:21
Basically then all of the fragments of Voldemort's soul except for the one in Nagini should have been there.
Title: Re: Harry Potter and The Deathly Hallows (w/Spoilers)
Post by: 0bsessions on 31 Jul 2007, 13:51
Why the hell would the Dark Wanker's active soul fragment go to King's Cross with a dead Harry and a dead Dumbledore? Voldie was still using it. The fragment in King's Cross is the fragment that was in Harry, that was killed by Voldie's AK.

Because when he hit Harry with that spell, he damn near killed himself, too. It's explicitely stated that when you destroy a Horcrux, you destroy the soul contained within. The Horcrux in Harry was done, finito, gone; it wouldn't have been at King's Cross with him.

Basically then all of the fragments of Voldemort's soul except for the one in Nagini should have been there.

I get the feeling you really just don't want to like this book or you skimmed it. I recommend going back and reading it. The Horcruxes were destroyed, and with them the fragments of Voldemort's soul were destroyed utterly. If they merely moved onto the afterlife indivudally, there would be no consequence for him, as they'd be together again once all the horcruxes were destroyed.

Am I the only one who read Prisoner of Azkaban, Order of the Phoenix and Half-Blood Prince? The details are all in there.

PoA: The reason the Dementor's Kiss is so feared and horrible is that they suck out your soul. It's referred to it as "a fate worse than death."
OoTP: When battling Voldemort, Dumbledore tells him that there are fates worse than death. Voldemort scoffs at the idea.
HBP: Harry discovers what a Horcrux is from Slughorn and that Riddle had sought him with inquiries on them. He learns that you contain a piece of your soul in it and Dumbledore reveals to him that if said Horcrux is destroyed, so is the piece of soul inside.
DH: Harry destroys all of Voldemort's Horcruxes with his friends' help, thus destroying Voldemort's Soul, essentially. A fate worse than death when we take the simple logic introduced throughout the prior books.

Don't overthink it, it's a simple line of retionale introduced for a children's book. Overthinking it just ruins it. Not everything in life and literature has to be a complex series of riddles.
Title: Re: Harry Potter and The Deathly Hallows (w/Spoilers)
Post by: TrekkieTechie on 31 Jul 2007, 15:44
It's explicitely stated that when you destroy a Horcrux, you destroy the soul contained within. The Horcrux in Harry was done, finito, gone; it wouldn't have been at King's Cross with him.
Yes -- they were destroyed. If you AK something, it dies, it isn't destroyed.

Six fragments were destroyed utterly by basilisk venom and Fiendfyre. One was AK'ed by Voldie himself when he attacked Harry -- this is the one that was trapped in King's Cross, "beyond help" because it was too damaged and maimed to make the journey to the afterlife. The final soul fragment was the one remaining in Voldemort during the Final Battle, which was killed when his AK rebounded on himself. This soul fragment, presumably identical to the maimed thing that was in King's Cross, is now stuck in limbo along with the other, because you can't go to the afterlife unless you have a complete soul.
Title: Re: Harry Potter and The Deathly Hallows (w/Spoilers)
Post by: 0bsessions on 31 Jul 2007, 18:15
I recall reading that the killing curse would outright destroy a Horcrux. Thus, his entire soul was destroyed, with the exception of what was left in his body. The idea that it is just removed from Harry and sent to limbo makes absolutely zero sense.
Title: Re: Harry Potter and The Deathly Hallows (w/Spoilers)
Post by: Lines on 31 Jul 2007, 18:38
I have to agree with Obsessions. Voldie killed the host of a horcrux and I see that as also killing the part of the soul that was housed within the host. I think if Neville had not had Godric's sword, he still would have been able to kill Nagini and destroy that horcrux as well. That's why Dumbledore thought that Voldie putting part of his soul in a living creature (Nagini) was a bit odd, as it could be killed.
Title: Re: Harry Potter and The Deathly Hallows (w/Spoilers)
Post by: Ernest on 31 Jul 2007, 18:54
I get the feeling you really just don't want to like this book or you skimmed it. I recommend going back and reading it. The Horcruxes were destroyed, and with them the fragments of Voldemort's soul were destroyed utterly. If they merely moved onto the afterlife indivudally, there would be no consequence for him, as they'd be together again once all the horcruxes were destroyed.

Well, you're wrong.  I sure as fuck read the whole thing through without skimming it and sure as fuck wanted to like it.  I really wanted to like it.  You really have no idea.  I love the Harry Potter books.

What I'm saying is that no reason you guys have proposed for that "soul fragment" being there makes sense.  If the parts of Voldemort's soul that are destroyed cease to exist, then they shouldn't be in the afterlife, but neither should the soul that he's still using.  Harry only goes to the King's Cross purgatory after Voldemort curses him, so why should Voldemort's soul fragment be there since nothing has happened to it?   
Title: Re: Harry Potter and The Deathly Hallows (w/Spoilers)
Post by: Lines on 31 Jul 2007, 19:04
First off, calm down dude. I'm sorry it wasn't what you expected, but seriously, calm down. Second, it was a glimpse of what would happen if Voldemort did not feel remorse and put his soul back together. It was what was waiting for him, not what was already there. Harry saw what Voldemort was doomed to, not what was already happening.
Title: Re: Harry Potter and The Deathly Hallows (w/Spoilers)
Post by: Ernest on 31 Jul 2007, 19:35
If that's true, then I think the thing is superfluous.  Look guys, I don't like it.  I think there is not enough closure with Voldie.  For the most part, though, I really did like the King's Cross chapter.  It's because Dumbledore was in it, and he's her best character and plot device.  Sorry I got all huffy, but I've already stated in this thread that I tried to like the book, and I don't like it when I'm accused of skimming it.  If I had merely skimmed it, I wouldn't feel confident enough to argue about it.
Title: Re: Harry Potter and The Deathly Hallows (w/Spoilers)
Post by: 0bsessions on 01 Aug 2007, 06:20
If you didn't like it, you didn't like it, but a lot of the reasons (Outside your initial one of feeling they were meandering too much) really seem to contradict what actually happened in the book.

I don't understand how you can feel there wasn't enough closure on Voldemort. His soul was destroyed and he was killed. You don't get much more closure than dead.
Title: Re: Harry Potter and The Deathly Hallows (w/Spoilers)
Post by: Caiphana on 01 Aug 2007, 13:09
You wanted things to happen differently- but they didn't. Aw, shucks. If you don't like it, write a fic of the final book. Ignore what really happened, according to JKR (who, by the way, came up with the entire HP universe).
Title: Re: Harry Potter and The Deathly Hallows (w/Spoilers)
Post by: Ernest on 01 Aug 2007, 14:09
I don't understand how you can feel there wasn't enough closure on Voldemort. His soul was destroyed and he was killed. You don't get much more closure than dead.

I wouldn't have minded so much if she had just, you know, wrote a better book.  The whole "Voldemort closure" thing started when I said I would like to see a part of the epilogue that has Voldie going to King's Cross and then being rejected by Dumbledore and souls of his victims and banned into oblivion.  He could have had a nice conversation with Dumbledore, which would have been hells of interesting.

I suppose I'm being a bit obtuse, so suffice to say I wish that she had written a better book.
Title: Re: Harry Potter and The Deathly Hallows (w/Spoilers)
Post by: Ernest on 01 Aug 2007, 14:11
You wanted things to happen differently- but they didn't. Aw, shucks. If you don't like it, write a fic of the final book. Ignore what really happened, according to JKR (who, by the way, came up with the entire HP universe).

I suppose you think there shouldn't be critics, then?  I suppose you get all huffy at the teacher of your creative writing class for actually grading your work.
Title: Re: Harry Potter and The Deathly Hallows (w/Spoilers)
Post by: Caiphana on 01 Aug 2007, 14:19
Buddy, I was serious. If you don't like it, write your own! People will read it, you know.

Heavens, no. Besides, my profs always like my writing, and I welcome criticism, since I know there is room for improvement. They always like my papers, though, even if they don't give me a high mark. Because my writing is usually very cynical and written like a black comedy, which seems to appeal to most English or Lit teachers, and I do not follow traditional conventions, but I don't rape grammar or the spellings and I can generally make it work. hm, I apologize for digressing. Back to the point: you are not JKR's creative writing teacher. You are not grading her. You are also not a critic. You are complaining on an internet forum that she will never see. What's the point? I didn't like the book either, but it's canon and we're stuck with it.
Title: Re: Harry Potter and The Deathly Hallows (w/Spoilers)
Post by: Ernest on 01 Aug 2007, 14:23
The point is to express my opinion.  There are plenty of music criticisms on the music forum that the artists will never see.

Honestly, I did think about writing my own epilogue about what happened to Voldemort.  But the thing is, since she created the HP universe, I wanted her to do it.  I wanted her to write a good book.  I just didn't think HP 7 was that good.  I'm really disappointed in it.  I needed to vent, and maybe it was good for me to argue with some people who disagree with me, as my friends who I've been discussing it with also disliked it.

I'm sorry about my response to your post.  I did think you were being a bit sarcastic.  But I see I was wrong.
Title: Re: Harry Potter and The Deathly Hallows (w/Spoilers)
Post by: Caiphana on 01 Aug 2007, 14:37
I agree with you. I felt that HP7 was not nearly as good as it could have been, as it should have been. When I came across an early copy of it on the internet, I prayed that it was a hoax. A very elaborate hoax that led someone to print up a book and take a picture of each page. I was disappointed and frustrated to the point of tears.

I feel like it's not done. Plus, I'm a H/H shipper, so Harry and Ginny shacking up upset me beyond belief... and the names of their children were just ridiculous. She made her characters do things they never would do, and she stretched things pretty far (what was up with the Put-Outer?)... it was weird and disjointed and silly and full of pointless bits (why kill Hedwig?). But I've resigned myself to this, and I am going to bury myself in far better fan fics. Best part in HP7? Not my daughter, you bitch. That's it.

No, re-reading my post, it does sound like I was being sarcastic. I'm sorry, I didn't plan on it coming across that way (having a bit of an issue with a prick on another forum I'm on, so my mode of speech accidentally stayed the same over here).
Title: Re: Harry Potter and The Deathly Hallows (w/Spoilers)
Post by: the_shankmaster on 01 Aug 2007, 16:42
(what was up with the Put-Outer?)


Seriously.

Dumbledore: I'm gonna invent something that puts out lights and then turns them back on.  And you know what else?  It's also gonna lead you back to friends you've abandoned when they say you're name!

Eh???
Title: Re: Harry Potter and The Deathly Hallows (w/Spoilers)
Post by: 0bsessions on 01 Aug 2007, 17:09
A wizard did it.
Title: Re: Harry Potter and The Deathly Hallows (w/Spoilers)
Post by: Lunchbox on 01 Aug 2007, 18:06
For those who are wanting some more information on things that happened after DH, and a bunch of other random stuff, JK did an online chat the other day with bloomsbury.com.

I'm going to have to post it in two bits so it fits.

Quote
Webchat with J.K. Rowling, 30 July 2007


J.K. Rowling: I’m here and I can’t wait! Bring on the questions!

Leaky Cauldron: What, if anything, did the wizarding world learn, and how did society change, as a direct result of the war with Voldemort? (i.e., not as a result of Harry, Ron and Hermione’s future careers.)

J.K. Rowling: The Ministry of Magic was de-corrupted, and with Kingsley at the helm the discrimination that was always latent there was eradicated. Harry, Ron, Hermione, Ginny et al would of course play a significant part in the re-building of wizarding society through their future careers.

Ryan Love: From your fans at www.thesnitch.co.uk. Weren’t we supposed to see Ginny display powerful magical abilities in Deathly Hallows and find out why it’s significant that she’s the seventh child? Was her main role in the books only to be Harry’s love interest?

J.K. Rowling: Hi Ryan! Well, I think Ginny demonstrated powerful magic in the final battle, and that for a sixteen year old witch she acquitted herself pretty well. I don’t remember ever saying that her ‘seventh child’ status would prove particularly important in the last book, though — are you sure I said that?!

Georgina: Did Lucius Malfoy, and all the other escaped Death Eaters, go back to Azkaban?

J.K. Rowling: No, the Malfoys weaseled their way out of trouble (again) due to the fact that they colluded (albeit out of self-interest) with Harry at the end of the battle.

Elisabeth: In the chapter of Kings Cross, are they behind the veil or in some world between the real world and the veil?

J.K. Rowling: You can make up your own mind on this, but I think that Harry entered a kind of limbo between life and death.

Renee: From reading about the original owners of the Deathly Hallows, the Peverell brothers, I’m wondering if Harry and Voldermort are distantly related Voldermorts grandfather ended up with the resurrection stone ring?

J.K. Rowling: Yes, Harry and Voldemort are distantly related through the Peverells.  Of course, nearly all wizarding families are related if you trace them back through the centuries. As was made clear in Deathly Hallows, Peverell blood would run through many wizarding families.

Fomy: What did you feel when you finally wrote the kiss, awaited so much by the fans, of Ron and Hermione

J.K. Rowling: I loved writing it, and I loved the fact that Hermione took the initiative!  Ron had finally got SPEW and earned himself a snog!

Angela Morrissey: Why is it that Albus Dumbledore can see Harry under his invisibility cloak at certain moments? (during the series is the cloak only infallible to those who do not own a Deathly Hallow).

J.K. Rowling: Dumbledore, who could perform magic without needing to say the incantation aloud, was using ‘homenum revelio’ the human-presence-revealing spell Hermione makes use of in Deathly Hallows.

Jamie Lewis: What ever happened to Winky?

J.K. Rowling: She’s still at Hogwarts, and she was one of the oncoming house-elves who attacked the Death Eaters in the final battle.

Katieleigh: Does Hermione still continue to do work with Spew and is life any better for house elves!

J.K. Rowling: Hermione began her post-Hogwarts career at the Department for the Regulation and Control of Magical Creatures where she was instrumental in greatly improving life for house-elves and their ilk. She then moved (despite her jibe to Scrimgeour) to the Dept. of Magical Law Enforcement where she was a progressive voice who ensured the eradication of oppressive, pro-pureblood laws.

Tineke: Did Teddy grow up living with his grandmother?

J.K. Rowling: Yes, Teddy was raised by Andromeda. However, unlike Neville, who was also raised by his grandmother Teddy had his godfather, Harry, and all his father’s friends in the Order, to visit and stay with.

Blodeuwedd: Hi jk, first of all thank you for all the books I have enjoyed each and every one of them could you tell us what professions Harry, Hermione, Ron, Ginny and Luna go on to have did the trio do their final year at school and take their newts?

J.K. Rowling: Thank you! I’ve already answered about Hermione. Kingsley became permanent Minister for Magic, and naturally he wanted Harry to head up his new Auror department.  Harry did so (just because Voldemort was gone, it didn’t mean that there would not be other Dark witches and wizards in the coming years). Ron joined George at Weasleys’ Wizarding Wheezes, which became an enormous money-spinner... After a few years as a celebrated player for the Holyhead Harpies, Ginny retired to have her family and to become the Senior Quidditch correspondent at the Daily Prophet!

Camille: What or who is Peeves exactly, is he linked with the bloody Barons story?

J.K. Rowling: No, Peeves is not linked to the bloody Baron’s story. He is a spirit of chaos that entered the building long ago and has proved impossible to eradicate!

Jessie: Were the Deathly Hallows based on any realworld myth or faerie tale?

J.K. Rowling: Perhaps ‘the Pardoner’s Tale’, by Chaucer.

Alicepie: What happend to Luna, did she get married who to?

J.K. Rowling: She ended up marrying (rather later than Harry & co) a fellow naturalist and grandson of the great Newt Scamander (Rolf)!

Rosi: What does in essence divided mean?

J.K. Rowling: Dumbledore suspected that the snake’s essence was divided — that it contained part of Voldemort’s soul, and that was why it was so very adept at doing his bidding.  This also explained why Harry, the last and unintended Horcrux, could see so clearly through the snake’s eyes, just as he regularly sees through Voldemort’s.  Dumbledore is thinking aloud here, edging towards the truth with the help of the Pensieve.

Superhans: What was Dudley's worst memory?

J.K. Rowling: I think that when Dudley was attacked by the Dementors he saw himself, for the first time, as he really was. This was an extremely painful, but ultimately salutory lesson, and began the transformation in him.

Casey Kunze: Who killed Remus and Tonks I think if I knew this, I would get some closure over the very sad, but understandable, death of two of my favorite characters.

J.K. Rowling: I’m so sorry! I met a couple on launch night who had come dressed as Lupin and Tonks, and I felt dreadfully guilty as I signed their books!  Remus was killed by Dolohov and Tonks by Bellatrix.

Laura Trego: Was the absence of Snape's portrait in the headmaster's office in the last scene innocent or deliberate?

J.K. Rowling: It was deliberate. Snape had effectively abandoned his post before dying, so he had not merited inclusion in these august circles.  However, I like to think that Harry would be instrumental in ensuring that Snape’s portrait would appear there in due course.

Stephanie: If the wand chooses the wizard, then why do wands work when passed down from father to son eg Neville had his fathers wand?

J.K. Rowling: As established by Ollivander, a wizard can use almost any wand, it is simply that a wand that chooses him/her will work best. Where there is a family connection, a wand will work a little better than a wand chosen at random, I think.

James Farrell: How did Umbridge manage to conjure a Patronus while wearing the locket when Harry wasn't able to?

J.K. Rowling: Because she is a very nasty piece of work. She has an affinity for this horrible object, which would help rather than hinder her.

Tineke: What happened to Percy -  did he return to his job at the ministry?

J.K. Rowling: Yes, the new improved Percy ended up as a high-ranking official under Kingsley.

Su: How did Neville get the Gryffindor sword, is there a link to the hat?

J.K. Rowling: Yes, there is very definitely a link to the hat!  Neville, most worthy Gryffindor, asked for help just as Harry did in the Chamber of secrets, and Gryffindor’s sword was transported into Gryffindor’s old hat — the Sorting Hat was Gryffindor’s initially, as you know.  Griphook was wrong — Gryffindor did not ‘steal’ the sword, not unless you are a goblin fanatic and believe that all goblin-made objects really belong to the maker.

Steph: Will Azkaban still use Dementors?

J.K. Rowling: No, definitely not. Kingsley would see to that. The use of Dementors was always a mark of the underlying corruption of the Ministry, as Dumbledore constantly maintained.

Smallbutpowerful: On behalf of all Harry Potter fans who consider themselves to be Hufflepuffs could you please describe the Hufflepuff common room as it is the only common room Harry hasn’t visited.

J.K. Rowling: The Hufflepuff common room is accessed through a portrait near the kitchens, as I am sure you have deduced.  Sorry — I should say ‘painting’ rather than portrait, because it is a still-life. It is a very cosy and welcoming place, as dissimilar as possible from Snape’s dungeon. Lots of yellow hangings, and fat armchairs, and little underground tunnels leading to the dormitories, all of which have perfectly round doors, like barrel tops.

Camille: How is George getting along without his twin?

J.K. Rowling: Well, I don’t think that George would ever get over losing Fred, which makes me feel so sad. However, he names his first child and son Fred, and he goes on to have a very successful career, helped by good old Ron.

Jessica Lynn: Did Hagrid have to be able to see Thestrals in order to train them if so, whose death did Hagrid witness?

J.K. Rowling: Hagrid has seen many deaths in quite a long life, so yes, he can see Thestrals.

Allie: What did Dumbledore truly see in the mirror of erised?

J.K. Rowling: He saw his family alive, whole and happy — Ariana, Percival and Kendra all returned to him, and Aberforth reconciled to him.

Snapedinhalf: You promised that someone will do magic late in life in book 7. I’ve now read it three times but cant work out who it might have been! Please help!!

J.K. Rowling: I’m sorry about this, but I changed my mind! My very earliest plan for the story involved somebody managing to get to Hogwarts when they had never done magic before, but I had changed my mind by the time I’d written the third book.

Christiana: How did Voldemort get his wand back after he was in was exile?

J.K. Rowling: Wormtail, desperate to curry favour, salvaged it from the place it had fallen and carried it to him. I admit that would have been a bit of a feat for a rat, but they are highly intelligent creatures!

Amanda: Hiya, I've grown up with Harry and the gang, did any of the characters change in any unexpected ways as they grew up?

J.K. Rowling: They all became pretty much what I expected/planned them to become. Of course they changed as I wrote, but nobody surprised me very much!

Ravleen: How much does the fact that Voldemort was conceived under a love potion have to do with his nonability to understand love.  Is it more symbolic?

J.K. Rowling: It was a symbolic way of showing that he came from a loveless union — but of course, everything would have changed if Merope had survived and raised him herself and loved him. The enchantment under which Tom Riddle fathered Voldemort is important because it shows coercion, and there can’t be many more prejudicial ways to enter the world than as the result of such a union.

Lechicaneuronline: Do you think Snape is a hero?

J.K. Rowling: Yes, I do; though a very flawed hero. An anti-hero, perhaps. He is not a particularly likeable man in many ways. He remains rather cruel, a bully, riddled with bitterness and insecurity — and yet he loved, and showed loyalty to that love and, ultimately, laid down his life because of it. That’s pretty heroic!

James Farrell: Voldemort never told anyone about his horcruxes, so how on earth did Regulus Black discover his secret?

J.K. Rowling: Horcrux magic was not Voldemort’s own invention; as is established in the story, other wizards had done it, though never gone as far as to make six. Voldemort dropped oblique hints; in his arrogance, he did not believe anybody would be clever enough to understand them. (He does so in the graveyard of Little Hangleton, in front of Harry). He did this before Regulus and Regulus guessed, correctly, what it was that made Voldemort so convinced he could not die.

Jaclyn: Did Lily ever have feelings back for Snape?

J.K. Rowling: Yes. She might even have grown to love him romantically (she certainly loved him as a friend) if he had not loved Dark Magic so much, and been drawn to such loathesome people and acts.

Boggo: Would you choose the Hallow that is the cloak, like you're supposed to, and would you be tempted to use the others?

J.K. Rowling: My temptation would be Harry’s, ie, the Stone. But I believe, as does Harry ultimately, that the greatest wisdom is in accepting that we must all die, and moving on.

Cornersoul: So what happens to all the Dementors where will they go will they be destroyed if so, how?

J.K. Rowling: You cannot destroy Dementors, though you can limit their numbers if you eradicate the conditions in which they multiply, ie, despair and degradation. As I’ve already said, though, the Ministry no longer used them to torment its opponents.

Michael: Why didn't Fawkes come back to help Harry? I would have thought that since Harry was so loyal to Dumbledore, Fawkes would have been Harry's new pet?

J.K. Rowling: Something had to leave the school for good when Dumbledore died, and I decided that would be Fawkes. Dumbledore was a very great and irreplacable man, and the loss of Fawkes (and the fact that he was ‘non-transferable’!) expresses this symbolically

Roseweasley: Why was Colin Creavey still a student at Hogwarts when he was muggleborn surely he would have been locked up and interogated, not allowed back to school therefore, he shouldn't have died?

J.K. Rowling: Colin wasn’t a student. He sneaked back with the rest of the DA, along with Fred, George and the rest. He ought not to have stayed behind when McGonagall told him to leave, but alas — he did.

Delailah: How does Dumbledore understand Parseltongue?

J.K. Rowling: Dumbledore understood Mermish, Gobbledegook and Parseltongue. The man was brilliant.

Jessie: Will Lockhart ever recover?

J.K. Rowling: No. Nor would I want him to. He’s happy where he is, and I’m happier without him!

Annie: Does the wizarding world now know that snape was Dumbledore's man, or do they still think he did a bunk?

J.K. Rowling: Harry would ensure that Snape’s heroism was known.  Of course, that would not stop Rita Skeeter writing ‘Snape: Scoundrel or Saint?’

Vio91: Is Teddy Lupin a werewolf?

J.K. Rowling: No, he’s a Metamorphmagus like his mother.

Nippy23: We see socks a lot throughout the series, such as Dobby’s love for them and Dumbledore’s claim to see them in the mirror of erised, what’s the reason behind all the socks?

J.K. Rowling: Nothing deep and significant, I’m afraid. They’re just a comedy item.

Lady Bella: Whose murders did Voldemort use to create each of the horcruxes?

J.K. Rowling: The diary — Moaning Myrtle. The cup — Hepzibah Smith, the previous owner. The locket — a Muggle tramp. Nagini — Bertha Jorkins (Voldemort could use a wand once he regained a rudimentary body, as long as the victim was subdued).  The diadem — an Albanian peasant. The ring — Tom Riddle snr.

Sampotterish: Why did Dumbledore want Ron to keep his deluminator?

J.K. Rowling: Because he knew that Ron might need a little more guidance than the other two. Dumbledore understood Ron’s importance in the trio. He wasn’t the most skilled, or the most intelligent, but he held them together; his humour and his good heart were essential.

Carol: Do Dementors have souls

J.K. Rowling: No, that’s what makes them frightening!

Jess Mac: What was the third smell that Hermione smelt in the amortentia potion in hbp (ie the particular essence of Ron)?

J.K. Rowling: I think it was his hair. Every individual has very distinctive-smelling hair, don’t you find?

Natalie: Are house divisions as prevalaent in Harry’s childrens' Hogwarts as in the previous generations?

J.K. Rowling: Slytherin has become diluted. It is no longer the pureblood bastion it once was. Nevertheless, its dark reputation lingers, hence Albus Potter’s fears.

Title: Re: Harry Potter and The Deathly Hallows (w/Spoilers)
Post by: Lunchbox on 01 Aug 2007, 18:06
Quote
Nithya: Lily detested Mulciber Avery.  If snape really loved her,why didn't he sacrifice their company for her sake?

J.K. Rowling: Well, that is Snape’s tragedy. Given his time over again he would not have become a Death Eater, but like many insecure, vulnerable people (like Wormtail) he craved membership of something big and powerful, something impressive. He wanted Lily and he wanted Mulciber too. He never really understood Lily’s aversion; he was so blinded by his attraction to the dark side he thought she would find him impressive if he became a real Death Eater.

Alborz: What does it mean to be the master of Death?

J.K. Rowling: As Dumbledore explains, the real master of Death accepts that he must die, and that there are much worse things in the world of the living. It is not about striving for immortality, but about accepting mortality.

Barbara: I was very disappointed to see Harry use crucio and seem to enjoy it.  His failure to perform that kind of curse in the past has been a credit to his character why the change, and did Harry later regret having enjoyed deliberately causing pain?

J.K. Rowling: Harry is not, and never has been, a saint. Like Snape, he is flawed and mortal.  Harry’s faults are primarily anger and occasional arrogance.  On this occasion, he is very angry and acts accordingly. He is also in an extreme situation, and attempting to defend somebody very good against a violent and murderous opponent.

Nicole: What do you think is the funniest moment you have written in the series

J.K. Rowling: It sounds very vain to answer this! My favourite in this book is probably that line of Ron’s ‘really captures the scope and tragedy of the thing, doesn’t it?’

Courtney: What child did Harry give the marauders map to if any?

J.K. Rowling: I’ve got a feeling he didn’t give it to any of them, but that James sneaked it out of his father’s desk one day.

Karin: What did Petunia wanted to say to Harry at the end of the Dursleys departing?

J.K. Rowling: I think that for one moment she trembled on the verge of wishing Harry luck; that she almost acknowledged that her loathing of his world, and of him, was born out of jealousy.  But she couldn’t do it; years of pretending that ‘normal’ was best had hardened her too much.

Leaky Cauldron: Please pose and answer the question you’d most like to address about the series! (a ha, turned it back on you.)

J.K. Rowling: Oooo, you’re tough.  I must admit, I always wondered why nobody ever asked me what Dumbledore’s wand was made of!  And I couldn’t say that, even when asked ‘what do you wish you’d been asked…’ because it would have sign-posted just how significant that wand would become!

Nora: Is Auntie Muriel's tiara important?

J.K. Rowling: No, sorry… except to illustrate what an old bat she is.

Nigel: Can Harry speak Parseltongue when he is no longer a horcrux?

J.K. Rowling: No, he loses the ability, and is very glad to do so.

Nikki: How did Sirius' twoway mirror end up with Aberforth or is it another twoway mirror?

J.K. Rowling: You see Aberforth meeting Mundungus in Hogsmeade. That was the occasion on which Dung, who had taken Sirius’s mirror from Grimmauld Place, sold it to Aberforth.

Tierney Roth: If Moody got a magic eye, and Wormtail got a magic hand, couldn't there be some way to form a magical ear, if only to cover up the hole and make George look more symmetrical?

J.K. Rowling: Yes, he could wear a false ear (I’m starting to giggle at the thought. Perhaps he’s better off with the hole!)

Lucy: What is Dumbledore's boggart?

J.K. Rowling: The corpse of his sister.

Pablo: What is toadface Umbridge doing now?

J.K. Rowling: Glad to see you like her as much as I do! She was arrested, interrogated and imprisoned for crimes against Muggleborns.

Tina: Do the muggles notice that there aren't any weird things going on now that Voldemort's gone?

J.K. Rowling: Yes, the world seems a much sunnier place (literally — with the Dementors gone the weather gets better!) We are having a heavily Dementor-influenced summer here in the UK.

Katie Mosher: How exactly do muggleborns receive magical ability?

J.K. Rowling: Muggleborns will have a witch or wizard somewhere on their family tree, in some cases many, many generations back. The gene re-surfaces in some unexpected places.

Maggie: Is Rita Skeeter still reporting?

J.K. Rowling: Naturally, what could stop Rita? I imagine she immediately dashed off a biography of Harry after he defeated Voldemort. One quarter truth to three quarters rubbish.

Maggie Keir: Was Hermione able to find her parents and undo the memory damage?

J.K. Rowling: Yes, she brought them home straight away.

Lola Victorpujebet: Was Minerva in love with Albus?

J.K. Rowling: No! Not everybody falls in love with everybody else…

Rachel Nell: Jkr, thank you for such amazing books! I would like to know how come no one seemed to know that Lily and Snape were friends in school they were obviously meeting for chats, etc didn't James know their past?

J.K. Rowling: Thank you for your thank you!  Yes, it was known that they were friendly and then stopped being friends. Nothing more than that would be widely known.  James always suspected Snape harboured deeper feelings for Lily, which was a factor in James’ behaviour to Snape.

Abbey: Will the Chuddley Cannons ever win the Quidditch World Cup?

J.K. Rowling: Bless them, perhaps. But they’d need to replace the entire team and down several cauldrons of Felix Felicitas.

Hayleyhaha: Why did Regulus have a change of heart?

J.K. Rowling: He was not prepared for the reality of life as a Death Eater. It was Voldemort’s attempted murder of Kreacher that really turned him.

J.K. Rowling: Scorpius has a lot going against him, not least that name. However, I think Scorpius would be an improvement on his father, whom misfortune has sobered!

Stephval: Is Scorpius as misguided as his father, or has Draco improved and taught his child(ren) better?

J.K. Rowling: Sorry, technical hitch — just answered a question before seeing it!  I am clearly getting better at Legilimency.

Lona: Did Draco and Harry lose their animosity towards eachother when Voldemort died?

J.K. Rowling: Not really. There would be a kind of rapprochement, in that Harry knows Draco hated being a Death Eater, and would not have killed Dumbledore; similarly, Draco would feel a grudging gratitude towards Harry for saving his life.  Real friendship would be out of the question, though. Too much had happened prior to the final battle.

Hannah: Why was Snape so badly groomed?

J.K. Rowling: Hmm. Good question. Poor eyesight? Did he look in the mirror and believe he was gorgeous as he was?  I think it more likely that he valued other qualities in himself!

Ea: Will the stone ever be found, since it was left just sitting on the forest floor?

J.K. Rowling: I think not. I imagine that it was squashed into the ground by a centaur’s hoof as the centaurs dashed to the aid of the Hogwarts fighters, and thereafter became buried.

Adwait313: Has the jinx on the dada teaching post at hogwarts been lifted?

J.K. Rowling: Yes, at last! Incidentally, I know some have asked about Quirrell with regard to this question. He was teaching at Hogwarts for more than a year, but NOT in the post of D.A.D.A. teacher. He was previously Muggle Studies professor.

Emily: What ever happened to Aberforth?

J.K. Rowling: He is still there, at the Hog’s Head, playing with his goats.

Lee: I recently purchsed Nimbus TwoThousand.  It has a terrible knack of veering left.  Is their anything I can do (wihout the use of a wand it was broken by a hippogriff) to repair it back to it original straight flying state?

J.K. Rowling: Hm. I would advise a trip to Arkie Alderton’s Kwik-Repair Shop. Never attempt to mend a broom at home, the consequences can be disastrous.

Abjoppotter: Is Narcissa Malfoy really a Death Eater?

J.K. Rowling: No, she never had the Dark Mark and was never a fully paid-up member. However, her views were identical to those of her husband until Voldemort planned the death of her son.

Emzzy: Did Mr Weasley ever get around to fixing Sirius' motorbike?

J.K. Rowling: Of course, and it ended up in Harry’s possession.

Lulu: Do you think Dumbledore was a little more fond of Ron than either Ron or Harry believed?

J.K. Rowling: Yes, I do. Through Harry’s account of Ron, and from reports of the professors who taught Ron, Dumbledore understood Ron better than Ron ever knew, and liked him, too.

Chelatina: Was Firenze ever welcomed back into the herd?

J.K. Rowling: Yes, the rest of the herd was forced to acknowledge that Firenze’s pro-human leanings were not shameful, but honourable.

Kristy: What was your favorite scene to write in Deathly Hallows?

J.K. Rowling: Chapter 34: The Forest Again.

Chely: James' Patronus is a stag and Lily's a doe.  Is that a coincidence?

J.K. Rowling: No, the Patronus often mutates to take the image of the love of one’s life (because they so often become the ‘happy thought’ that generates a Patronus).

Jon: Since Voldemort was afraid of death, did he choose to be a ghost if so where does he haunt or is this not possible due to his horcruxes?

J.K. Rowling: No, he is not a ghost. He is forced to exist in the stunted form we witnessed in King’s Cross.

Angela Morrissey: Were there seven horcruxes not six as Dumbledore intimated to harry if so, does this mean that Voldemort had an 8 part soul not a 7?

J.K. Rowling: Yes, Voldemort accidentally broke his soul into eight parts, not seven.

Laura Trego: Did Hermione really put a memory charm on her parents she says she did but then about 50 pages later tells ron shes never done a memory charm?

J.K. Rowling: They are two different charms. She has not wiped her parents’ memories (as she later does to Dolohov and Rowle); she has bewitched them to make them believe that they are different people.

Maura: How come Voldemort was no longer employing occlumency against Harry, as he was in the 6th book?

J.K. Rowling: He is losing control, and unable to prevent Harry seeing into his mind. The connection between them is never fully understood by Voldemort, who does not know that Harry is a Horcrux.

Gandalfxj9: Did Krum ever find love?

J.K. Rowling: Of course, though he had to go back to his native Bulgaria to do so.

Twinkletoes: Why did you feel that Hedwig's death was necessary?

J.K. Rowling: The loss of Hedwig represented a loss of innocence and security. She has been almost like a cuddly toy to Harry at times. Voldemort killing her marked the end of childhood. I’m sorry… I know that death upset a LOT of people!

Lecanard: Will we see Harry and his friends having their own history on chocolate frogs cards?

J.K. Rowling: Definitely, and Ron will describe this as his finest hour.

Mike: What is the incantation for creating a horcrux?

J.K. Rowling: I cannot possibly tell you. Some things are better left unsaid.

Samantha: Was Snape the only Death Eater who could produce a full Patronus?

J.K. Rowling: Yes, because a Patronus is used against things that the Death Eaters generally generate, or fight alongside. They would not need Patronuses.

Jess: How did Nagini could see Harry and Hermione if they were under the invisibility cloak?

J.K. Rowling: Snakes’ sense are very different from human ones. They can detect heat and movement in a way that we can’t.

Chucky: Have you had another alternatives as book title apart from Deathly Hallows?

J.K. Rowling: The two other possibilities were ‘the Elder Wand’ (used instead as a chapter title) and ‘the Peverell Quest’, which I decided against quite quickly. I think the word ‘Quest’ is a bit corny!

Iglooanne: What would your Patronus be?

J.K. Rowling: I’d like an otter, like Hermione, but I’ve got a feeling it might be a large dog.

The Stoic Cycle: Why is it that Voldemort is unaware that the gaunt ring is a hallow, when he has worn it (such as in the memory the diary shows Harry in book 2)

J.K. Rowling: Wearing the ring would not make the stone work. The stone existed outside the ring originally, and to use it you had to turn it three times in your hand.

Finchburg: Does the dark mark remain on those that Voldemort has branded after his death or does the tattoo dissapear now he is gone thanks for considering my question!

J.K. Rowling: My pleasure, Finchburg! The Dark Mark would fade to a scar, not dissimilar to the lightning scar on Harry’s forehead.  Like Harry’s, these scars would no longer burn or hurt.

Katie Mosher: How is the Quibbler doing these days?

J.K. Rowling: Pretty well, actually. It has returned to its usual condition of advanced lunacy, and is appreciated for its unintentional humour.

Camille: Dear Mrs Rowling, while I'm here I want to thank you for making me laugh, cry (a lot! Most of all for Sirius!) since I'm 11 quite a long time for me as I'm 20 Harry's magic and yours will be with me forever! Thanks!

J.K. Rowling: Thank you very much, Camille, and I’m sorry about Sirius. That man’s got a lot of fans.  Mostly female, I might add.

Nicofr: Does Winky still drink a lot of butterbear?

J.K. Rowling: She’s dried out a bit now.

Isabel: Did Bellatrix ever love her husband, or did she have love only for Voldemort?

J.K. Rowling: She took a pureblood husband, because that was what was expected of her, but her true love was always Voldemort.

jenny: How did Snape keep his Patronus secret from the rest of the order?

J.K. Rowling: He was careful not to use the talking Patronus means of communication with them. This was not difficult, as his particular job within the Order, ie, as spy, meant that sending a Patronus to any of them might have given away his true allegiance.

Darchey: Did Voldemort ever love a girl?

J.K. Rowling: No, he loved only power, and himself. He valued people whom he could use to advance his own objectives.

Leo: What would your wand be made of?

J.K. Rowling: I’d like Harry’s wand — holly and phoenix feather.

Brian: Did the DA keep the coins?

J.K. Rowling: Naturally. They would be like badges or medals of honour — proof that the owner had been at the heart of the fight against Voldemort from the start! I like to imagine Neville showing his to his admiring pupils.

Tracie: How relieved are you that you can finally talk about the series no more secretkeeping!

J.K. Rowling: I’m elated! It is great to be able to do this at last, I’ve looked forward to it for so long!

Lou: How did Snape get into Grimmauld place to get the second half of the letter, if there were protection spells on the house stopping Snape getting in?

J.K. Rowling: Snape entered the house immediately after Dumbledore’s death, before Moody put up the spells against him.

Koen Van Der Voort: Why is the scar on Harry's forehead lightning shaped?

J.K. Rowling: To be honest, because it’s a cool shape. I couldn’t have my hero sport a doughnut-shaped scar.

Louie: Did Marietta's pimply formation ever fade?

J.K. Rowling: Eventually, but it left a few scars. I loathe a traitor!

Katie B: Why was Kings Cross the place Harry went to when he died?

J.K. Rowling: For many reasons. The name works rather well, and it has been established in the books as the gateway between two worlds, and Harry would associate it with moving on between two worlds (don’t forget that it is Harry’s image we see, not necessarily what is really there.

J.K. Rowling: We seem to have over-run. We’ve had over 120,000 questions, I’ve been told!  What can I say? Thank you so much for sticking with me, and with Harry, for so long. You have made this an incredible journey for Harry’s author.

J.K. Rowling: I like this question, so I’ll take it for my last.

Tess: What muggle song do you imagine would be played at Dumbledore's funeral?

J.K. Rowling: Surely ‘I did it my way’ by Frank Sinatra.

J.K. Rowling: I’m very aware I haven’t answered everything… keep an eye on my website, and I’ll try and answer some more questions in due course!

Thanks very much everybody, I’ve had a great time, and I hope I’ve covered some of the outstanding questions (I hear a distant roar of ‘YOU DIDN’T GET TO MINE!’)

That’s it… I’m Disapparating. Bye
Title: Re: Harry Potter and The Deathly Hallows (w/Spoilers)
Post by: Lines on 01 Aug 2007, 19:12
That's really awesome. I would have never even thought to ask about the Hufflepuff common room. (Though in the interview I watched earlier this week, I remember her saying Ron had become an Auror.)
Title: Re: Harry Potter and The Deathly Hallows (w/Spoilers)
Post by: Ernest on 01 Aug 2007, 19:26
I agree with you. I felt that HP7 was not nearly as good as it could have been, as it should have been. When I came across an early copy of it on the internet, I prayed that it was a hoax. A very elaborate hoax that led someone to print up a book and take a picture of each page. I was disappointed and frustrated to the point of tears.

I feel like it's not done. Plus, I'm a H/H shipper, so Harry and Ginny shacking up upset me beyond belief... and the names of their children were just ridiculous. She made her characters do things they never would do, and she stretched things pretty far (what was up with the Put-Outer?)... it was weird and disjointed and silly and full of pointless bits (why kill Hedwig?). But I've resigned myself to this, and I am going to bury myself in far better fan fics. Best part in HP7? Not my daughter, you bitch. That's it.

Exactly how I feel.  Hedwig and Fred were nothing more than collateral damage.  The book was basically garbage.  I'm not going to say it was simply "disappointing," because that's going to easy on J. K.  She let us down, and she let us down big.  I wish she'd write another one and say "Ha!  The other book seven was an elaborate joke on my readers!  It was just my first draft!  I've since written 100 more drafts!"
Title: Re: Harry Potter and The Deathly Hallows (w/Spoilers)
Post by: LizziL on 01 Aug 2007, 20:52
 :cry:FRED!!!!!
It was an excellent read, but Fred's death was so terrible!
Tonks and Lupin went too quickly, and Mad-Eye was so unexpected!
I absolutely LOVED the part with Snape and Lily, and when Sirius and Co came back to help him.
Title: Re: Harry Potter and The Deathly Hallows (w/Spoilers)
Post by: 0bsessions on 02 Aug 2007, 06:15
She let me down, and she let me down big."

Fixed for you. Seriously, what is it with your unending desire to feel as if you speak for anyone but yourself on this? I and most others on this thread, it would seem, quite enjoyed it. I personally thought it was an excellent wrap to a fun series of books. You've readily established that your essential reasons for disliking it are that it didn't line up with what 'your vision' was. I reiterate: the only person whose vision it had to line up with was Rowling's. She created it, she wrote it. You've yet to give a compelling argument for why it was a "bad book" outside of your own personal grievances about what you would've done and that's all rather petty when it comes down to it. Personally, I would've set the book aflame if there was some trite and cliched scene involving Voldemort being denied entrance to the afterlife by those he killed. Suffice to say: you can't please all of the people all of the time. You didn't like it, get over it; I don't think it was a personal insult to you and I'm pretty sure Rowling didn't go out of her way to fuck up the experience for you. You just come off so self important in these rants.
Title: Re: Harry Potter and The Deathly Hallows (w/Spoilers)
Post by: Ernest on 02 Aug 2007, 13:10
She made her characters do things they never would do, and she stretched things pretty far (what was up with the Put-Outer?)

It's shit like that that ruins the book.  I say "us" because while I believe that taste is subjective, I also believe that art can be generally good and bad.  I believe that this book was basically bullshit.  I find it hard to believe that in anyone's heart of hearts they actually like this book.  Apparently, I'm wrong.  You and some others, who seem like smart, perceptive folks to me, seem to like this book.  Whatever, I'm not stopping you, but I'm not going to stop complaining about the book, because I feel cheated.
Title: Re: Harry Potter and The Deathly Hallows (w/Spoilers)
Post by: Ozymandias on 02 Aug 2007, 14:03
All I'm hearing from the people who didn't like the book is that people think they understand J.K. Rowling's characters and universe better than her.

Which is, actually, among the most asinine things I've ever heard.
Title: Re: Harry Potter and The Deathly Hallows (w/Spoilers)
Post by: Ernest on 02 Aug 2007, 14:10
How can that possibly be the most asinine thing you've ever heard?  She wrote a goddamn shitty-ass book.  You're also spinning it.  We're not saying that we understand the characters better than she does, we're saying that she did a half-assed job wrapping the series up.
Title: Re: Harry Potter and The Deathly Hallows (w/Spoilers)
Post by: CmonMiracle on 02 Aug 2007, 17:13
The language being used in this thread is out of control. Also, this thread is out of control now, it's pretty much degenerated into shouting back and forth.
Title: Re: Harry Potter and The Deathly Hallows (w/Spoilers)
Post by: the_shankmaster on 02 Aug 2007, 20:30
A wizard did it.

What I meant was that it was random.  It's like having a toaster that gives you dating advice.  If it had been a compass or binoculars or something you usually use to find something that's different. 
Title: Re: Harry Potter and The Deathly Hallows (w/Spoilers)
Post by: Ernest on 02 Aug 2007, 20:53
The language being used in this thread is out of control. Also, this thread is out of control now, it's pretty much degenerated into shouting back and forth.

That's fine, 'cause I'm done here.
Title: Re: Harry Potter and The Deathly Hallows (w/Spoilers)
Post by: Lines on 03 Aug 2007, 08:01
Good. Now maybe we can actually get back on topic.
Title: Re: Harry Potter and The Deathly Hallows (w/Spoilers)
Post by: ruyi on 03 Aug 2007, 16:35
recap (http://diogenes-sinope.blogspot.com/2007/07/potterdammerung-mega-spoilers.html) of the whole book. pretty funny.
Title: Re: Harry Potter and The Deathly Hallows (w/Spoilers)
Post by: Kaktion on 05 Aug 2007, 00:12
I read it because it was given to me by a friend of the family.

There, I said it! I spent all this time trying not to get excited about it but as soon as I had the book in my hands I obsessively drank it all in. I can safely say, I dug it. I thought I'd grown out of my Potter phase, but I totally devoured this one. It was good in a way that was weird to me. It just felt like an ending I'd be okay with. The entire book made that odd epilogue worth it and I liked it. Some of the deaths were "ehh", but I enjoyed the book. I enjoyed reading all seven books all these years.

Shit, now if it wasn't that the hardcore fans embarrass me so much I could admit it to the world without the tiniest hint of shame. Eh, whatever. I'm delirious from lack of sleep, probably.

edit:

Did anyone else hear Ron Perlman with an accent while reading Voldemort? I mean, it's probably just me because every villain eventually sounds like Ron Perlman to me because he's just so good at these kinds of voices, and you know...
Title: Re: Harry Potter and The Deathly Hallows (w/Spoilers)
Post by: Jimmy the Squid on 05 Aug 2007, 01:26
I absolutely loved it. I even managed to avoid all the spoilers, real or fake. It was definately not the best book I've ever read but it (the whole series) was probably the best story I've heard.
Title: Re: Harry Potter and The Deathly Hallows (w/Spoilers)
Post by: LeeZion on 08 Aug 2007, 13:36
recap (http://diogenes-sinope.blogspot.com/2007/07/potterdammerung-mega-spoilers.html) of the whole book. pretty funny.

That essay brilliantly and hilariously highlighted just about everything that was wrong with the book. Now to two things that were RIGHT about it.

The massive amount of time the trio spent tramping around the country doing nothing was NOT a flaw (at least in my mind). J.K. Rowling set this up to be the exact OPPOSITE of the hero myth, in which the plot progresses linearly and the hero, by virtue of being the hero, automatically knows the right direction to travel or the correct course of action. Instead, the story unfolds much in the same way that things would happen if you or I were in the same situation. It's easier to identify with a protagonist who's shaken and uncertain, just like us, but does his best anyway — rather than some superhuman who doesn't have to struggle.

In a similar vein, notice how democratic the destruction of the Horcruxes was? Again, Rowling turns away from the hero myth. Instead of Harry on a lone journey to destroy all the Horcruxes...

Horcrux no. 1: Destroyed by Harry, long before he even knows what a Horcrux is.
Horcrux no. 2: Destroyed by Dumbledore.
Horcrux no. 3: Destroyed by Ron.
Horcrux no. 4: Destroyed by Hermione.
Horcrux no. 5: Destroyed by accident, before anyone has a chance to argue over who gets to do it.
Horcrux no. 6: Destroyed by Voldemort, as Harry voluntarily offers himself up.
Horcrux no. 7: Destroyed by Neville.
Horcrux no. 8: Destroyed by Harry.
Title: Re: Harry Potter and The Deathly Hallows (w/Spoilers)
Post by: the_shankmaster on 08 Aug 2007, 14:53
We're not saying Harry should have had all the answers and known exactly what to do.  What we're saying is that she could have established the hopelessness and and lack of direction in far fewer pages than she did.
Title: Re: Harry Potter and The Deathly Hallows (w/Spoilers)
Post by: Ernest on 09 Aug 2007, 10:44
J.K. Rowling set this up to be the exact OPPOSITE of the hero myth, in which the plot progresses linearly and the hero, by virtue of being the hero, automatically knows the right direction to travel or the correct course of action. Instead, the story unfolds much in the same way that things would happen if you or I were in the same situation. It's easier to identify with a protagonist who's shaken and uncertain, just like us, but does his best anyway — rather than some superhuman who doesn't have to struggle.

That's an interesting take.  Still, she completely broke from the way she had written the books before.  This one a. wasn't clever, and b.wasn't written well.  Now, the first six books weren't written particularly well, either, but at least they had clever plot twists and compelling stories.  The seventh book had neither, and so the poor writing showed through much more glaringly.
Title: Re: Harry Potter and The Deathly Hallows (w/Spoilers)
Post by: 0bsessions on 09 Aug 2007, 10:52
Once again, completely disagreed.
Title: Re: Harry Potter and The Deathly Hallows (w/Spoilers)
Post by: LeeZion on 09 Aug 2007, 13:29
I try to be realistic about the books. I'm rereading Book 7 right now, and I just got past the visit to Lovegood's house. Even the second time around, the time spent stuck in the forest doesn't seem too long.

Even so, I realize that the books as a whole have a bunch of Unforgivably Unanswerable Questions. In "Hallows," there were at least two obvious ones: (1) Y-O-Y (That's "Why oh why") didn't Voldemort hide the Horcrux in the Chamber of Secrets (a room he felt fairly certain nobody could ever get into and one that housed one of his greatest triumphs) rather than the Room of Requirement (which he must have known anybody could get into)? And (2) Do you really expect us to believe the Chamber could open for Ron?

Here are some of my favorite Unforgivably Unanswerable Questions from previous books:

Azkaban: With three fully qualified adult wizards who know what Pettigrew is capable of, and one underage wizard who's one of the most briiliant witches Hogwarts has ever seen, AND considering that Pettigrew wouldn't like being handed over to the Dementors, AND knowing that Harry wants to see Sirius cleared, Y-O-Y didn't anyone think of knocking Pettigrew unconscious so he couldn't escape. Surely the unconscious form of Snape must have given them some ideas. Surely "Stupefy" or a blow to the head would have done the trick. Considering everything that happened afterward — even Voldemort himself said he might never have been restored were it not for Pettigrew — it seems like such an idiotic blunder for no apparent reason.

Goblet: So the only reason Crouch did everything he could to get Harry to win the tournament was so Harry could be Portkeyed to Voldemort? Why did he have to do all that when ANY Portkey would have done the job? Harry could have been zapped to Voldemort at the beginning of the year, so Voldemort wouldn't have had to wait so long, AND Harry wouldn't have mastered useful skills like the Summoning Charm and resisting the Imperius curse AND Crouch could have succeeded in his mission without calling attention to himself. All he had to do was say, "Oh, Harry? I left my book in Hargid's cabin. Can you go and get it for me?" To make matters worse, we learn in the fifth book that Voldemort's return didn't go according to plan because so one was supposed to know. Wouldn't it have made more sense for Harry to disappear when nobody was watching, rather than when he had everyone in the entire school watching him?

Half-Blood: So the Patronus can suddenly be used for sending secret messages back and forth? Wouldn't it have been nice for someone to tell Harry this last year? That way, Sirius wouldn't have died.

And while this one isn't "Unforgivable," I'm just curious:

What DOES a boggart look like when nobody's around? And how come nobody ever thinks to ask Moody, who's the one person who's in a position to know the answer?
Title: Re: Harry Potter and The Deathly Hallows (w/Spoilers)
Post by: 0bsessions on 09 Aug 2007, 13:46
Voldemort assumed he was the only one smart enough to discover the Room of Requirement. It all falls back to his arrogance.

Azkaban: If they'd knocked Pettigrew unconscious, who exactly was going to carry him? Ron was hurt and needed assistance walking. You really think they could've carried both of them?

Goblet: It's easier to explain his disappearance in the maze than any of the other trials. I seem to recall there being some other reason for the timeframe (Preperation-wise), but I don't recall exactly.

HBP: As I recall it, the Patronuses couldn't go particularly long distances. Each of the instances where someone sent a patronus, it was in reasonable proximity. Considering the apparent distance between London and Hogwart's, I don't see that this would've been any help to Sirius. Beyond that, as far as Harry knew, Sirius was at the Ministry and he had no other reason to send it.

I don't see that anyone's in a position to know exactly what a boggart really looks like. How, exactly, would anyone gain an authority on that? Everyone's afraid of something, thus it couldn't conceivably appear in its natural form to any witch or wizard.
Title: Re: Harry Potter and The Deathly Hallows (w/Spoilers)
Post by: pilsner on 09 Aug 2007, 14:19
J.K. Rowling set this up to be the exact OPPOSITE of the hero myth, in which the plot progresses linearly and the hero, by virtue of being the hero, automatically knows the right direction to travel or the correct course of action.

Dunno, seems like JK hewed pretty closely to the hero myth described in "Hero With A Thousand Faces":

Quote from: wikipiedia
(1) A call to adventure, which the hero has to accept or decline
(2) A road of trials, regarding which the hero succeeds or fails
(3) Achieving the goal or "boon," which often results in important self-knowledge
(4) A return to the ordinary world, again as to which the hero can succeed or fail
(5) Application of the boon, in which what the hero has gained can be used to improve the world

A story where the hero knows what to do by virtue of nothing other than being the hero isn't a hero myth.  It's crap.  Now perhaps you could claim that most of the hero stories you get these days are crap.  But still . . . .

Quote from: ruyi
recap of the whole book. pretty funny.

Freakin hilarious, thanks ruyi.  But despite the attention payed to plot holes, inconsistencies, and played out language, that seemed to me more like a labor of love than a satire.  I mean, the author had a serious thing for Luna.
Title: Re: Harry Potter and The Deathly Hallows (w/Spoilers)
Post by: LeeZion on 09 Aug 2007, 14:26
Response to Obsessions:

1) With all that other stuff sitting in the room already?

2) They "carried" Snape. They could have left him behind and magicked an unconscious Pettigrew instead.

3) The fake Moody could have made him disappear WITHOUT EVEN ENTERING HIM IN THE CONTEST! He could have turned ANYTHING into a Portkey! As in, "Oops, I left my book in Hagrid's cabin. Harry, can you go and get it for me? You know, my leg being how it is ... "

4) Not knowing how far it is from London to the Weasley home, or how far it is from Hogwarts to the lake in the woods, I'll concede your point on this one.

5) We actually see Moody, from the safety of the ground floor, looking at a boggart through the ceiling and into a cabinet where a boggart is (apparently) unaware of his presence. He really IS in a position to know what a boggart looks like when no one is around.
Title: Re: Harry Potter and The Deathly Hallows (w/Spoilers)
Post by: pilsner on 09 Aug 2007, 14:38
1) I've been through this a few times already.  There are a few alternative explanations.  The room of requirements may have shown Voldemort an empty room because that's what he needed and then put the tiara in the same lost and found as the other objects because that's what Harry needed.  Or else Voldemort just opened the door and threw it in without looking at what was inside.

2) I think they just understimated Pettigrew's reflexes when he woke up.  Not really unforgivable for me at least.

3) Yeah that bothered the crap out of me too.

5) I have no problem with the idea that a bogart has no real shape or appearance aside from resembling your worst fear.  So Moody might have seen his worst fear with the magic eye.  Or he saw a vaguely menacing cloud which he recognized from prior experiences with boggarts.
Title: Re: Harry Potter and The Deathly Hallows (w/Spoilers)
Post by: 0bsessions on 09 Aug 2007, 15:11
1. We don't know that stuff was in there in Riddle's time and, once again, we fall back to his biggest downfall of arrogance. He might've just assumed the room was always as it was.

3. And what exactly do you think Dumbledore's reaction would be to Harry disappearing right in the middle of the schoolyear? Dumbledore was keeping a sharp eye on both Harry and Moody. Harry disappearing during the deadly maze is one thing, but just mysteriously going missing at a random interval would be way too fishy.
Title: Re: Harry Potter and The Deathly Hallows (w/Spoilers)
Post by: axerton on 09 Aug 2007, 19:50
Your all forgetting one thing: Narrativium. If Crouch Jr had just taken harry at the first chance he got the book would have been incredibly boring and only about 100 pages long.

Also remember Voldemort is incredibly smart, so he concocted a plan that got Harry spending so long looking for danger from the outside, he would never have considered that what he actually had to look out for was help.

The horcrux locations did annoy me a bit, I mean Voldemort put incredibly heavy protection on the locket (and from what Dumbledore said the ring as well), but just abandoned the diadem with nothing protecting it. Personally I would have thought it would be hidden in the orphanage, in Tom Riddle's cupboard that Dumbledore set of fire (because this was the first time he had ever seen true magic) but once again Narrativium played a part: JK needed an excuse for Harry to be at hogwarts for the final battle.
Title: Re: Harry Potter and The Deathly Hallows (w/Spoilers)
Post by: pilsner on 10 Aug 2007, 05:50
If you think about it, the best place to put at least one of the horcruxes would have been 2 miles underground in an unmarked hole that no one could ever find.  Or you know in a random spot in the forest outside Hogwarts which apparently renders an artifact of incredible power completely unrecoverable.
Title: Re: Harry Potter and The Deathly Hallows (w/Spoilers)
Post by: axerton on 10 Aug 2007, 06:49
Narrativium beats your logic.

Oh and something about Voldemort being arragent and prideful.
Title: Re: Harry Potter and The Deathly Hallows (w/Spoilers)
Post by: pilsner on 10 Aug 2007, 07:42
Agreed.  I mean in any fantasy or sci fi setting there are almost always applications of the magic/science that would have rendered the plot moot, for which reason the author either didn't think of them or declined to use them.  Especially Harry Potter.  Why didn't the Order imperius Thicknesse?  Why didn't Sirius ignore Harry and Aveda Kedavra Pettigrew?  In fact, why did the good guys wait for the last half of the last book to use imperius (Harry, McGonnagal), aveda kedavra (Ron's mom), and crucio (Harry)? 

What would you prefer to have: an enjoyable, gripping book full of logic flaws and continuity errors, or an absolutely boring book that makes perfect logical sense?
Title: Re: Harry Potter and The Deathly Hallows (w/Spoilers)
Post by: SeanBateman on 10 Aug 2007, 18:36
Guys the book kind of did suck.


Leaving aside everything else, all the wandering in forests and random breaks with characterization that had been established over 6 previous books. Leaving aside all the bullshit about horcruxes being in stupid places(wtf connection did voldemort have to Bellatrix's Gringotts vault?) and Neville suddenly going from plump buffoon to badass rebel leader.

What the fuck was that final battle scene. An army of house elves and centaurs, Giants included as an afterthought because she had mentioned them earlier? A giant army of reinforcements? Characters being killed just for effect and to bring the death toll up?

It's the problem with making books into movies while they're still being written because real talk that last battle scene was just her wanting to have a huge fucking climax to the 7th movie. There is no other reason at all for that. Also that epilouge was written worse than a lot of fan fic I have seen.
Title: Re: Harry Potter and The Deathly Hallows (w/Spoilers)
Post by: Maui on 10 Aug 2007, 21:02
OMG FINALLY GOT TO READ IT TODAY.

I so so so agree about the movies.  I think they're alright, but probably could've been loads better if they had just waited a couple of years for the story to be finished eh? 


As for the book, i finished it and was satisfied.
An hour later i was super mad when i read online all this nonsense about Rowling wrapping up the loose ends of the story in televiision and online interviews.  Am i the only person who doesn't understand why she couldn't just have added another 50 pages to the book?  I'm not sure, but that bothered me a lot. 

I was content with the book but to be all "Hey i didnt want to water down the epilogue so here, let me describe on the today show how Harry Potter became an auror" just kind of ruined the magic for me i think. 
Title: Re: Harry Potter and The Deathly Hallows (w/Spoilers)
Post by: 0bsessions on 11 Aug 2007, 06:10
(wtf connection did voldemort have to Bellatrix's Gringotts vault?)

As was explained in the book, Gringott's was a place that represented wealth, something he had never known in life. He acknowledged the inherent power of the upper class and that's why he had it there.

Quote
and Neville suddenly going from plump buffoon to badass rebel leader.

I'd hardly call it sudden. The evolution of Neville as a character has been a gradual thing that had building since the first book when he first stood up to the others when they were leaving to try and stop Snape. It started to take on a quicker pace by the point of the fourth and fifth books when details started to surface about his parents' fate.

Quote
What the fuck was that final battle scene. An army of house elves and centaurs, Giants included as an afterthought because she had mentioned them earlier?

It had been foreshadowed toward the beginning of book five that the giants would be joining Voldemort and I enjoyed seeing a bit of an actual payoff to the whole SPEW storyline, which is what I felt the house elves were involved for.

Quote
Characters being killed just for effect and to bring the death toll up?

Well, that's basically the purpose of any death in books and movies. Any writer can get by with death, but it's always been a common story device to make the stakes seem higher. Headwig's death proved early on that really no one was safe. Headwig was something seemingly integral to Harry as a character, yet minor enough that you're really never expect Rowling to bother with it.
Title: Re: Harry Potter and The Deathly Hallows (w/Spoilers)
Post by: SeanBateman on 11 Aug 2007, 06:50

Quote
What the fuck was that final battle scene. An army of house elves and centaurs, Giants included as an afterthought because she had mentioned them earlier?

It had been foreshadowed toward the beginning of book five that the giants would be joining Voldemort and I enjoyed seeing a bit of an actual payoff to the whole SPEW storyline, which is what I felt the house elves were involved for.

They didn't mention SPEW at all. And if anything, Hermione pissed off[i/] the house elves, not inspired them to fight for her, if I remember book 5. I knew the giants were joining Voldemort, but really it felt like she just added them to that scene, not to the story as a whole, because she wanted the final battle to be more epic.
Title: Re: Harry Potter and The Deathly Hallows (w/Spoilers)
Post by: the_shankmaster on 11 Aug 2007, 19:20

I was content with the book but to be all "Hey i didnt want to water down the epilogue so here, let me describe on the today show how Harry Potter became an auror" just kind of ruined the magic for me i think. 

It seems like a huge cop-out.  "I can't effectively write this into the book, so I'll just tell you about it sometime."
Title: Re: Harry Potter and The Deathly Hallows (w/Spoilers)
Post by: Johnny C on 14 Aug 2007, 22:56
Well, that's basically the purpose of any death in books and movies. Any writer can get by with death, but it's always been a common story device to make the stakes seem higher. Headwig's death proved early on that really no one was safe. Headwig was something seemingly integral to Harry as a character, yet minor enough that you're really never expect Rowling to bother with it.

Hm?

No, death should be used as a thematic device rather than a deus ex machina sort of thing to get the plot moving or to wrench an emotion out of the reader. The difference between a writer who uses death gratuitously and one who uses death organically is that the deaths from the latter writer will always, always be more authentically moving.

The deaths of characters like Remus and Tonks were a bummer but nowhere near as crushing as the end of, say, Of Mice And Men for that reason.

I really liked the book. It was riveting, in fact. I read it in enormous chunks and could barely tear myself away from it whenever I picked it up. Rowling delivered on not only the loose story ends of the series but also the themes - love conquering death more than anything else (look how well it conqured death compared to the Hallows themselves) and greed, corruption and pride causing nothing but temporary power and permanent ruin.

The deaths were my only complaint, and not because there were too many or anything but because they sometimes just didn't feel like anything but death for death's sake - say what you will about "that's how it would happen in real life the deaths wouldn't be as important etc." but we are reading books about teenage wizards and witches. If I want realism I'll open a newspaper. If I want fiction I open a novel, and if someone important dies I better damn well feel something at their loss.
Title: Re: Harry Potter and The Deathly Hallows (w/Spoilers)
Post by: 0bsessions on 15 Aug 2007, 06:20
I would generally agree with you if it were serialized fiction, as opposed to a finite story. Death for death's sake is fine as far as I'm concerned in something that's coming to a close. There's nothing left to be done with these characters and they're being taken off the table regardless. I like seeing the message of death sometimes being gratuitous and without any real meaning. The fact it's realistic is a good way of connecting with the reader, I find.

In a comic or TV show, I stand more on your side of the argument. If there's no specific end in sight, you're crippling the overall story and taking away vast possibilities for the sake of a shocking moment (I.E.: Most deaths in comic books work this way and with changing writers, this is why nobody really stays dead in comics, not even Spider-Man's elderly aunt). The thing for me is that in a finite storyline, the characters have already served their purposes and nobody really needs to die unless it's the crux of the story. Of Mice and Men's a story I can't agree with your use of at all as the ending is the entire destination. The book simply doesn't work without that scene. The main reason I don't find that comparrison to hold water is the difference in cast size. Harry Potter went on for seven books and ammassed a huge cast of characters. With that many people, there's really no way to make death a deus ex outside of the character's initial motivation and backstory. Every single death from there on out becomes gratuitous, in a way. In the end, Sirius' death served absolutely no purpose. Cedric's death was entirely unnecessary. The absolute only two deaths that served any real purpose when it gets down to it is Fred (Motivator for Molly, which even then could be written off as her daughter was being attacked) and Dumbledore (Whose death was really such a large part of book six).

90% of death in modern literature is gratuitous and can be written around. The excessive deaths in this book served the purpose of showing that anything can happen and nobody's sake. It ramps up the suspense and keeps you turning the pages.
Title: Re: Harry Potter and The Deathly Hallows (w/Spoilers)
Post by: Johnny C on 15 Aug 2007, 09:20
I'd agree with you if I didn't feel the stakes were high enough to begin with, and certainly high enough to justify keeping it under the final tally of twenty-three deaths, of which six were actually "bad guys." (http://harrypotter.wikia.com/wiki/List_of_deaths#Harry_Potter_and_the_Deathly_Hallows)

I'm not arguing that all the deaths were gratuitous. In fact I'd say there were more than two neccessary deaths in the seventh novel alone, and here are the characters I think Rowling had, thematically and storywise, to kill:


Without those characters' deaths, the plot would have been a lot different. Burbage did the job for establishing that Hogwarts wasn't safe anymore. Moody's death not only established that nobody was safe but it also provided motivation for the characters to strike off on their own, as they didn't want to risk the lives of any more of their friends. Scrimegour was neccessary in order to establish Voldemort's ministry. Gregorovitch, as well as Grindelwald, made sense simply because Voldemort is straight-up murder incarnate. Bagshot didn't really need to be inhabited by Nagini but the results of that disaster put emphasis on how dangerous it was for Harry and Hermione to be going on their own and made Ron's return even more heartening. Pettigrew's death made sense from a continuity standpoint - if the hand was magic and from Voldemort it wouldn't take betrayal lightly. Even though, seriously, that was some weird voodoo shit. Fred Weasely is debatable - his death was motivation for Molly to go as hard as she did against Bellatrix, though from my understanding of the character (and I'm surely not alone on this) I'm pretty sure she would have done the same thing under any circumstances. Snape's death was easily the most important of the entire novel; not only was it a goldmine of character, but it gave Harry a new insight into the idea of the power of love, once again touching on the series' overarching theme and spurring Harry on to face Voldemort unafraid of death. If any character's death works in the Of Mice And Men analogy, it's either Snape or Voldemort - the entire series was heading towards something with those characters. Nagini, well, she was a Horcrux so she had to die for the book to end. And of course, Voldemort or Harry had to die. There were no two ways about that.

I'm going, of course, from the established idea that Voldemort is a cold-hearted murderer who does nothing but love killing, and therefore any of those deaths that were even tangentally related to him were justifiable.

But looking at that list, I'd say that the stakes were high enough. By Lupin and Tonks' deaths I was just thinking to myself, "well, shit" but the fact of the matter is that I already knew I was going to keep reading. I get the odd feeling that if you need the suspense ramped up by a death on every other page rather than the idea that a novel is hurtling towards an inevitable, final and epic conclusion then perhaps the novel is not your ideal medium.
Title: Re: Harry Potter and The Deathly Hallows (w/Spoilers)
Post by: pilsner on 15 Aug 2007, 10:48
Hey, what a great discussion.

I've been of the opinion from the beginning that JK wanted to make the war in her books seem like real war like Johnny said.  And in real war people die for stupid, stupid, arbitrary reasons.  If you're serving in Iraq, you're best friend can die tomorrow by stepping on a land mine.  No moral.  No thematic purpose.  Except for maybe the ubertheme: war is arbitrary and horrible because people you care for die for no reason at all.

Johnny, I take exception to your distinction between fiction and the newspaper because there have to be some elements of realism in a work -- even one this fantastic -- for us to care at all.  Otherwise it's just Looney Tunes -- Fred gets killed but comes back for the next episode. 

JK has gone on the record (see Lunchy's post) saying that Harry's owl's death represented the end of his childhood and the beginning of his adulthood.  But ultimately, that death and the death of all the other good guys that died in book seven were, I believe, meant to be arbitrary and superficially meaningless, because that is how JK perceives war, and that is how she wants us to perceive it.

In fact, there is something and fresh about a fantasy story that purposefully makes you regret the killing of a number of good people for no apparent reason, rather than loading every (rare death) of a friend of the protagonist with thematic and plot significance (see, e.g., every piece of crap David Edding's ever commited to paper).

Moreover, the whole arbitrary thing is catching on.

*SPOILER ALERT*

Remember in Serenity when Joss Whedon kills off the pilot dude suddenly, without any apparent plot or thematic reason, and somewhat arbitrarily (the cockpit glass could withstand space particles but not a balliste -- give me a break).  I had major flashbacks to that scene when I read that Tonks and Lupin were dead.

Even further, the good guys seem to suffer a lot more casualities than the bad guys.  Another theme: idealism has its costs.  If the Order had been as willing to use unforgiveable curses from the beginning (and yes I know Harry, McGonnagal and Mrs. Weasley all used them at one or more points -- but they definitely did not do it as often as say, Bellatrix) they probably could have lowered the causualty rates on their side.  But they didn't for moral reasons, and paid the price in blood.

So, in sum, even the meaningless deaths in Hallows arguably contribute to a larger theme that JK has repeatedly espoused: war is hell and good people die apparently meaningless deaths.  Now JK's stuff is pulp, it's not literature.  She's not making any point with all these deaths that Voltaire didn't make in Candide.  But she deserves kudos for introducing a relatively profound point in the context of a pulp work that happens to be the most popular series ever.
Title: Re: Harry Potter and The Deathly Hallows (w/Spoilers)
Post by: Caiphana on 15 Aug 2007, 12:46
I have one thing to say.

Harry Potter is supposed to be a children's book. Allegedly. From the beginning, I thought it was a hell of a lot more like a teen book (hell, it started with a double murder), but still. It's a kid's book. It's not life. It's fiction. In real life, Harry, Ron, or Hermione would have died, people essential to the plot of life.

Also, Harry is an incredibly static character, has anyone noticed that? In seven years, he didn't really change. Doesn't that seem odd to you? You can't make ONE portion of the book (ra, ra, yay, death!) like life and ignore the rest. What the hell is up with that? Raise your hand if you didn't change at all from the age of eleven to seventeen. Okay, then.
Title: Re: Harry Potter and The Deathly Hallows (w/Spoilers)
Post by: pilsner on 15 Aug 2007, 12:54
JK's repeatedly said that she was writing books 1-7 for the same kid as he or she grew from 6-10 to 16-20.  So no, Book 7 is not a children's book oriented to the same age group that book 1 was.  Philosopher's Stone was children's fiction, whereas Hallows was more young adult.  It's the difference between Susan Cooper and Ursula K. Le Guin.

As for Harry being incredibly static, I only partially agree.  If the one gets the impression that Harry doesn't change much within any given book that's a consequence of Rowling's poor authorship.  Certainly in Book 5 for instance, it was Rowling's intention to have Harry go from angry, lonely, and scapegoating his friends to achieve a more profound understanding of friendship by book's end.  But as for your claim that Harry doesn't change throughout the series -- I couldn't disagree more.  Do you see the boy in Book 2 casting Crucio?
Title: Re: Harry Potter and The Deathly Hallows (w/Spoilers)
Post by: Caiphana on 15 Aug 2007, 13:12
Yes. Harry would have cast Crucio (if he knew what it was) in book two, if someone was messing with Ron or Mione.

Harry has always been driven by his emotions.

All I know is that I saw eight-year-olds with HP7. And HP7 was not a book for an eight-year-old.

It STARTED with a double murder. Started. Is that something a kid should be reading about?

Meh, whatever. I love HP. All the books. Some more than others. I just think JKR could have done better, that's all.
Title: Re: Harry Potter and The Deathly Hallows (w/Spoilers)
Post by: pilsner on 15 Aug 2007, 15:12
I'd have definite hesitations about my hypothetical eight year old reading hp7, or watching hp5 for that matter.  JKR could definitely have done better.  At the end of the day, she's not a very good writer.  Good enough, though.
Title: Re: Harry Potter and The Deathly Hallows (w/Spoilers)
Post by: Caiphana on 15 Aug 2007, 15:18
I agree with you wholeheartedly.

She did a great job creating a world that millions of people want to live in. That's something, that.
Title: Re: Harry Potter and The Deathly Hallows (w/Spoilers)
Post by: LeeZion on 15 Aug 2007, 21:32
I don't understand why a lot of people say there's too much death in the Harry Potter books. If anything, what happened in book seven was very much like life, while J.K. Rowling pulled her punches for what came before. Does anyone really believe, at the end of book five, that six underage wizards could take on an army of fully grown Death Eaters — all of them willing and able to kill for their cause — and not one of the six ends up with any permanent damage?

The same thing happened in book six, but at least that had a logical explanation with the Felix Felicis. And Bill doesn't exactly get out unscathed.

As for one other comment, I have to disagree:

Harry is an incredibly static character, has anyone noticed that? In seven years, he didn't really change. Doesn't that seem odd to you?

He does change, and sometimes in remarkably subtle ways. Contrast the trip to Hogwarts in books five and books six. In book five, when Cho Chang sees him in the compartment with Neville and Luna, he thinks to himself that he wishes she'd seen him with cooler friends. But in book six, when Romilda Vane tries to tempt him away from Neville and Luna, he flatly tells her, "These are my friends." That's a lot of growing in a single year.

Similarly, in book five, when Harry is furious with Dumbledore, Phineas Nigellus has to lecture him, reminding him that following Dumbledore's instructions has never led him into any harm. But in book seven, after Dumbledore's insturctions HAS led him into harm, he defends Dumbledore against Aberforth's accusations that people would have been better off if Dumbledore hadn't got involved.

If there's anyone guilty of not changing, it's Her-Annoying-Me Granger.
Title: Re: Harry Potter and The Deathly Hallows (w/Spoilers)
Post by: Johnny C on 16 Aug 2007, 00:25
what happened in book seven was very much like life

Right, with the wizards.
Title: Re: Harry Potter and The Deathly Hallows (w/Spoilers)
Post by: Jimmy the Squid on 16 Aug 2007, 04:21
Dude he was talking about the centaurs.
Title: Re: Harry Potter and The Deathly Hallows (w/Spoilers)
Post by: the_shankmaster on 19 Aug 2007, 00:57

If there's anyone guilty of not changing, it's Her-Annoying-Me Granger.

That's true, but you've got to admit that if she were anything other than what she was, the boys wouldn't have stood a chance.
Title: Re: Harry Potter and The Deathly Hallows (w/Spoilers)
Post by: SeanBateman on 19 Aug 2007, 15:59
Caiphana you are really very stupid.

Also, I feel like some of the deaths on that list didn't actually happen. Wasn't Ted Tonks raising his grandson in the epilouge?
Title: Re: Harry Potter and The Deathly Hallows (w/Spoilers)
Post by: the_shankmaster on 19 Aug 2007, 19:31
No.  Ted Tonks died.  His wife raised Teddy.
Title: Re: Harry Potter and The Deathly Hallows (w/Spoilers)
Post by: pilsner on 19 Aug 2007, 23:20
Caiphana you are really very stupid.

Is this a joke?  Caiphana's comments in this and other threads have been thoughtful and thought-provoking.  The opposite of stupid.
Title: Re: Harry Potter and The Deathly Hallows (w/Spoilers)
Post by: SeanBateman on 20 Aug 2007, 05:37
Caiphana you are really very stupid.

Is this a joke?  Caiphana's comments in this and other threads have been thoughtful and thought-provoking.  The opposite of stupid.

No, they've been reactionary and self indulgent. Which is stupid.
Title: Re: Harry Potter and The Deathly Hallows (w/Spoilers)
Post by: pilsner on 20 Aug 2007, 07:01
"Reactionary"?  Relating to reaction or ultraconservative politics?  I do not think this word means what you think it means.  As for self-indulgent, well this is an internet forum -- all the posts are self-indulgent.  It's not like we're curing cancer here.

I guess we're going to have to agree to disagree on the merits and profundity of Caiphana's posts.
Title: Re: Harry Potter and The Deathly Hallows (w/Spoilers)
Post by: Lines on 20 Aug 2007, 07:38
It STARTED with a double murder. Started. Is that something a kid should be reading about?

No offense, I'm just kind of tired with people using this argument. The book didn't actually start with a double murder, but the aftermath. Rowling never really really showed us exactly how they died until book 7, even though we start hearing/seeing glimpses in book 3. The characters are in an upheaval because Harry's parents were killed, but they didn't go into graphic detail about it. Really, I saw this as a series to begin when you're 11 and grow up with, making the first few books suitable for children, but the other books you read as you get older. If I had an 8 year old, I would surely let them read the first two books and feel fine, but I'd be more worried with book 7, because that one definitely isn't a children's book. And considering Rowling meant them as books to basically grow up with, just because book 1 is a kids book does not mean that book 7 has to be.
Title: Re: Harry Potter and The Deathly Hallows (w/Spoilers)
Post by: Caiphana on 20 Aug 2007, 12:25
Is this a joke?  Caiphana's comments in this and other threads have been thoughtful and thought-provoking.  The opposite of stupid.
No, they've been reactionary and self indulgent. Which is stupid.
*reads and shrugs* I don't care if you don't like me, sweetheart.

pilsner- hmmm. Thank you for the defense.

Linds- I see where you're coming from, and it makes sense. I keep thinking of myself and putting myself in the shoes of the little ones. I feel BAD for the kids who are currently eight, starting the HP series. They know that all the books are done, but they can't read all of them now? Why not? AUGH!
Title: Re: Harry Potter and The Deathly Hallows (w/Spoilers)
Post by: SeanBateman on 20 Aug 2007, 14:39
"Reactionary"?  Relating to reaction or ultraconservative politics?  I do not think this word means what you think it means.  As for self-indulgent, well this is an internet forum -- all the posts are self-indulgent.  It's not like we're curing cancer here.

I guess we're going to have to agree to disagree on the merits and profundity of Caiphana's posts.

No I'm pretty confident in my wording. Thanks though.
Title: Re: Harry Potter and The Deathly Hallows (w/Spoilers)
Post by: LeeZion on 21 Aug 2007, 16:35
Uh, since this is a Harry Potter forum, we need to get the conversation back on topic. I'll start.

OMG TEDDY AND VICTOIRE ARE MAKING TEH KISSES LOL
Title: Re: Harry Potter and The Deathly Hallows (w/Spoilers)
Post by: bryanthelion on 22 Aug 2007, 07:50
Ginny and Harry did it  :-o
Title: Re: Harry Potter and The Deathly Hallows (w/Spoilers)
Post by: Caiphana on 22 Aug 2007, 11:53
They did it at least three times, yes.
Title: Re: Harry Potter and The Deathly Hallows (w/Spoilers)
Post by: Lines on 22 Aug 2007, 12:42
Well, that is how you make babies.

Here's something I'm curious about - Whatever happened to Mr. Lestrange? Did he die in Azkaban or what? I think I missed that and I noticed he hasn't been around...
Title: Re: Harry Potter and The Deathly Hallows (w/Spoilers)
Post by: bryanthelion on 22 Aug 2007, 13:13
I mean they like did it

Also, look at my quote for my impression of the book
Title: Re: Harry Potter and The Deathly Hallows (w/Spoilers)
Post by: Caiphana on 22 Aug 2007, 13:17
...Yeah; they had sex. What's your point, kid?
Title: Re: Harry Potter and The Deathly Hallows (w/Spoilers)
Post by: bryanthelion on 22 Aug 2007, 15:19
Hmm

My point was, Chainsaws arent in hogwarts...

I dunno, I was kinda hoping that Harry would die. Then Ginny would become an auror. But NO that didnt happen, they had to kill voldemort! Which was lame.
Title: Re: Harry Potter and The Deathly Hallows (w/Spoilers)
Post by: Johnny C on 22 Aug 2007, 16:48
Also, I feel like some of the deaths on that list didn't actually happen.

Same here. Which is why they shouldn't have happened.