This is their final test, and they pass with flying colors.

I don't know what to say about Snape's death; he shaped his own life so relentlessly, I really thought that his end would follow suit- his choosing to break an Unbreakable Vow to Voldemort, or some such. I felt very strongly that she wrote this book specifically to close the door on fandom- not in any sort of a meanspirited way, but this book does feel- preplanned plot or no- like a deliberate attempt to close the door.

But I've just got to the wedding, and the phrases from the ceremonial that slip in are not default-heterosexual.

HP&tDH: practically page by page

@#5, Rachel Heslin, I know, read that yesterday, it was linked from the Whatever comment thread on HP, I was literally ROFL at that :DDD

*back to lurking*

As far as deaths go, I like the fact that not everyone who died got a Big Dramatic Heroic Death right in front of Harry. Mad-Eye, Tonks, and Lubin died in the heat of battle, the way some characters should die.

Also, count me surprised (but happy) that the Big Three all lived, and that both Lubin and Tonks died.

That said, Hedwig is still the one I'm mourning the most.

I loved the view of Snape's life, and how well Neville has grown as a character.

The only place where I don't feel a sense of resolution is the lack of any real revenge on Umbridge and Skeeter (the latter of whom, by the end, had to be working for Voldy).

I'm sure I'll have more thoughts tomorrow. Overall, I'm happy with it.

And let's face it - Harry and Ginny naming their kids James, Lily, and Albus Severus is a horribly cruel act.

Argh.

Although Hermione obliviating her parents was kinda cool...

The one place I thought she didn't completely wimp was in not whitewashing Snape.

As for Hermione's parents, didn't she say that she'd be able to reverse the memory wipe if they won? Not that getting them to move to Australia wasn't resourceful, mind you.

On the whole, I thought it was ok but not as clever a wrap-up as I expected.

I think that the epilogue was the biggest swing and a miss of the whole book.
I realise that in the potterverse, Hogwarts is the defining time in a persons life. I also recognise the opportunity for a "circle of life" type moment. That being said, the epilogue seemed to me to doom 19 years to nothing much happening, and passed up the opportunity for providing a place to deal with the short term results of the Order's victory, wrap up some of the minor characters a bit, especially those supporting voldy and to leave the characters as new adults, going forward into a future with a strong direction and open opportunities, instead of going forward with complete and utter certainty that their choices from hogwarts are the sum total of their destiny.

And someone beats me to Chris Bird's review. I thought he was a little harsh overall, but there were several places where he skewered the book very nicely.

My own grade: E-. (Although I suppose the OWL grades don't get + and - on them.) I thought it was worth the wait, and there've been plenty of things along these lines that haven't been.

I don't really see any problems with only middle-tier characters dying in this one. A major character dying at the end would have out-heroed Harry (again), and after Dumbledore and Sirius bought it in the last two books it would have looked like quota-filling anyway.

I was a bit surprised at how the relationships were played. Having paired the characters up in book six, Rowling seemed not to want to do anything with them but have the couples snog occasionally to remind us they were together. Nothing interesting was done with them, even when you had two seventeen year-old best friends shacked up together for long periods of time in a tent with nobody but each other for company. (I guess there wasn't really room for any _more_ teen angst in the series, but it did make the relationships seem flat and obligatory)

For US readers: pretty much every soap opera and TV serial in the UK, when they want to get rid of a character but hold open the possibility of their return, will have that character "move to Australia". (In Australian soaps, the character will move to Perth)

And then they order cappuchino. Instead of, say, grits.

Also, someone said that after Hermione wipes her parents' memories with a Memory Charm and exiles them, she says a few chapters later that she's never done a Memory Charm. Can anyone verify?

Mostly, though, I felt as if the characters were being shuttled in and out in obedience to what Rowling had scheduled to fit into the book and I didn't have much sense of them as people (Kreacher and Lupin in particular were beamed in from planet plot diagram). It's a shame, because one of the reasons I liked this series was the way she drew her characters.

I really regret Ron and Hermione. Back in the first book, their talents really made a difference and they did interesting things. Both of them have long since become pretty standard tiresome teenagers standing at a respectful distance from Harry's Lonely Destiny unless they're needed to throw a wandblast at someone or have their scheduled squabble with each other.

Poor Ron has it the worst, I think. At least Hermione occasionally gets to retrieve an important plot point from her bag of pedantry. Ron has spent the last three books too Hermioneswoggled to do much of anything. I didn't realize until he pointed it out that the locket was supposed to have negatively affected him. Ron's been behaving like that all by himself since at least Goblet of Fire.

I sniffled when Dobby died.

Chapter 6:
"I've also modified my parents' memories so that they're convinced they're really called Wendell and Monica Wilkins blah blah Australia blah emotion."

Chapter 9:
"You're the boss," said Ron, sounding profoundly relieved. "But I've never done a Memory Charm." // "Nor have I," said Hermione, "but I know the theory."

Ha! "What the **** are grits?", quoth the gumcracking waitress.

The one place I thought she didn't completely wimp was in not whitewashing Snape

I wonder why you don't include the way she darkens Dumbledore's character.

My nomination for the sentence that Matters in the whole story:

"You know, sometimes I think we Sort too soon..."

Julia: Thanks for mentioning the Molly Weasley/Bellatrix thing, which was definitely one of the better touches in the book.

Everyone: I sort of, kind of gathered that the flayed child whimpering in the corner in the final Harry/Dumbledore scene was some sort of Voldemort relict but I was absent the day they did symbolism so did anyone else get a clearer picture of what that was all about?

"So the part of his soul that was in me..."
Dumbledore nodded still more enthusiastically, urging Harry onwards, a broad smile of encouragement on his face. [man, it's lines like this that keep fandom strong]
"...has it gone?"
"Oh, yes!" said Dumbledore. "Yes, he destroyed it. Your soul is whole, and completely your own, Harry."
"But then..."
Harry glanced over his shoulder, to where the small, maimed creature trembled under the chair.
"What is that, Professor?"
"Something that is beyond either of our help," said Dumbledore.

Guess it depends on whether 'destroyed' means 'blasted into smithereens' or 'here in limbo'. The other Horcruxes screamed upon being destroyed, but they were the intentionally-made ones.

And the creepy flayed child bit was pure Rowling. She keeps doing that. Whenever things start looking all happy-skippy someone starts having to crush live animals for a potion or something.

Also, the Lupin-Tonks marriage was a trainwreck from both Watsonian and Doylist viewpoints. JKR really messed up if *that* was supposed to be an adult romance. They'd have had a messy divorce in year or two if they'd both survived.

I'm thinking that the Battle of Hogwarts could have been shorter if some of the Ministry types, the ones who dealt with Muggles, showed up with a 12-gauge or two.

There was a lot of death. Some of it offstage, and you only see the bodies. But in a war, that's as it should be. The power of Love as a redeemer was constant, though, and that was nice. Why did Ron come back, even if he was being a prat? Why did Snape protect Harry? That nice little bit with Narcissa, "Is Draco alive?" Servant of the Dark though she is, she's still a mother.

Snape's dry tone at "Would you like me to kill you now, or would you like me to wait until we've had lunch."

I'd really rather they didn't have the epilogue, though. Bleh.

Does anyone else think that the symbolism of the two important components of the ending are oddly in tension? Voldemort is made mortal by Harry's loving self-sacrifice, and Harry is saved by the remnants of his mother's loving ditto. And then Voldemort dies because under wandlore (hello, new magical principle just introduced!), Harry is actually the master of his wand, having defeated Draco, who defeated Dumbledore.

So, on one hand love and self-sacrifice, on the other dominance and mastery. It strikes me as kind of weird, and I'm not sure that Harry's choice to give up the Elder Wand is enough of an acknowledgement or reconcillation of the two.

(Even if V. was doomed just from the first bit, as people have pointed out there, the Elder Wand stuff is still treated as just as important. And, not incidentally, is a way for Rowling to have her cake and eat it too about the prophecy.)

It was James in the epilogue, not Harry, who was still anti-Slytherin. Harry told his son it'd be fine if he were in Slytherin.

We also saw Slughorn return for the final battle. I took that to suggest some of his students came with him.

I'm still scratching my head over the fact that the three kids go to Tottenham Court Road and find an all-hours greasy spoon complete with gum-cracking waitress.

And then they order cappuchino. Instead of, say, grits.

And I'm scratching my head over what you thought odd about this. I live in London, have eaten at a Tottenham Court Rd all-hours cafe, and saw nothing odd in the scene at all.

The epilogue felt like the easy way out. Not a cheat, exactly -- but there were definitely other ways she could have tied up the series that might have let Ginny and Hermione be something more than wives and mothers.

I know the need for a family of his own has been one of Harry's driving urges since Chapter II of the first book -- sending things out with him as the father of his own happy family might have felt like the only option. But I still found it frustrating.

Did anyone else find themselves mentally marking down the parts there'll be fanfic about? (I'm betting that the first Rose/Scorpius and Albus Severus/Scorpius is already being written, as I type these words.)

I agree the epilogue was unsatisfying. I would have preferred nothing or more. Either just end it with the dawn over Hogwarts, or give me a full chapter with professions, the love lives of minor characters, the current political climate, the pound:galleon exchange rate, etc. etc. etc.

And as far as Ron/Parseltongue goes, it's not like he held a conversation, or it's a voiceprint-activated lock or something. It's the open sesame principle, and while I wouldn't have minded seeing Ron going "SsssSSSssshss" "sSsssSSssshss" at a rock for a few minutes, I'm fine with it offscreen. Presumably, parseltongue is learnable (the line between "learnable" and "just a knack" is often a bit confusing in HP. Consider Animagi and Morphimagi).

Harry doesn't ask how Tonks/Lupin died, but he does freak out upon seeing them dead. "They were killed in battle" is enough for me. The epilogue remains my only objection to the book, and it's one I can live with. Though yes, Albus Severus Potter is a bit of a thing to hang on a child.

Prophecies pretty much go hand-in-hand with authors having their cake and eating it too. Both the Cirque du Freak series and the first Warriors series, amongst recent works, pull something similar. I'm okay with the way Rowling handled it here, although it's clear that other people's mileage varies.

As for wandlore, it doesn't bother me that much in that it was also just deduced by the characters themselves.

John A @ 21: Oh, yes. Especially since at the end it was a Slytherin who had been the bravest, and a Gryffindor who had been the most cunning. I wish Rowling had touched on that just a hair more.

okay, I'm better now. Thanks for the thread. My roommate is all, RAR! I hate Harry Potter! I couldn't even get into book 5! ... but I love Snape... And I might read books 5,6,7 so don't spoil them for me.

And let me just say that when I hit the Jesus bit, and realized this was the closest anyone has come to actually paralleling Jesus (Harry literally died so that Voldmort couldn't hurt everyone else!) I was both horrified and exhilarated.

Really, too, that interpretation is completely inconsistent with Rowling's stark delineation between evil deeds and evil intent. It's a somewhat uncomfortable distinction, because to observers — and frequently the doers themselves — it's a post hoc determination. Example: killing per se seems to qualify as an evil deed in Rowling's schema, but it's perfectly all right for the DA to use Unforgivable Curses against the Enemy... or, at least, it doesn't seem to impact their souls (or records with the MoM) the same way as was explained in HP4.

* * *

16: Sarcastically, one might infer that (however much she might consciously deny it) JKR had the relative talents of Emma Watson and Rupert Grint in mind when further limiting Ron's range and prominence. By this time, it's virtually inconceivable* that she hasn't come to her own conclusions about the actors who will be playing the central characters; there were certainly hints of that in HP5 and HP6.

From a more-theoretical point of view, I think too many adult readers of the HP series expect Ron to be a true sidekick to Harry — Sam to Frodo, Sancho to the Don, Jim to Huck. One theoretical problem is that the true sidekick can't fit into the roman fleuve structure and theme that — with varying success, but definitely points for trying — JKR followed for the series as a whole. Twain could do it (to some extent) because there wasn't any real expectation of what the roman fleuve was, or how it worked, when he was writing; we can't make the same claim today.

* * *

And I'm going to learn — and actually use — both the Cruciatus Curse and the Killing Curse on the next ignorant reviewer who tries to compare HP to Dickens without actually having read Dickens. Rowling is better than that. Dickens is vastly overrated; if nothing else, at least Rowling can manage to foreshadow plot turns without either resorting to Charles-Darnay-like coincidences that make no sense — all someone would need to do is listen to the (unbelievably foul and offensive expletives deleted) accents — or blinking-neon-sign changes in tone that say "This paragraph is foreshadowing, a sign of quality literature; ignore it at the potential peril of your grade." Perhaps the best example of this is that Neville's primary weapon until the final set-piece with the sword is his talent for, and hard-earned knowledge of, magical herbology.

* That word does mean what I think it does.

Luna also has matured nicely, I thought. She was still slightly spacey, but she was so calm and reserved even after her captivity, and she goes such a pithy, slightly goofy yet profound eulogy for Dobby.

There were several articles floating about the Internet that Rolwing's world is somewhat sexist, and even though she shows us powerful witches, none of them are adept or puissant as say, Dumbledore - There were inklings that she meant to create Madam Bones, the Head Auror, as Dumbledore-esque, but she killed her off-screen quickly and with no real fanfare.

However, she certainly gave Minerva McGonegall her rousing scenes in this one, and I was thrilled to see her taking on Voldemort personally (although with some help). The leading of the charge of the mobilized desks with her hair down and blood on her face was awesome. I also really, really enjoyed Neville's matter-of-fact description of his Gran taking out the Death Eater who came for her with utter ease.

Go Granny Longbottom!

(I, however, remain 'enh' regarding Molly Weasley and Bellatrx Lestrange)

I think that the epilogue was the biggest swing and a miss of the whole book.

That epilogue didn't do anything for me, either. I think it was written for the eventual screenplay. It's the happy bit just before the credits roll. It Just Wouldn't Do to end a family adventure movie with a pile of rubble and wizard bodies everywhere.

I dunno - I think his real revenge is that her career is over. Now that her side has tried to slaughter wizard children right out in public and lost and Kingsley Shacklebolt is running the ministry, what's Umbridge got? If Percy the neo-wiz careerist ran out on her faction, she has no support left at the ministry at all.

I'm guessing whatever the new iteration of Azkaban, but definitely not in public life, and that's got to kill her.

I believe the sorting hat has already been established as not only an extremely powerful magical artifact (having something of the powers of all house founders in it) but a sentient one, too (e.g. it composes the sorting song in sings at the beginning of each year.) As a magical artifact its powers have long been discounted by those who never looked beyond its scruffy appearance, and Voldy was a fool of the greatest sort (eh) to bring it into the fray.

21:

"You know, sometimes I think we Sort too soon..."

I agree that this is among the best lines of the book, and really, it's part of the arc that's revealed in the last several chapters, where any number of characters display strengths that aren't consistent with their houses' traits. And just in case we missed this, JK has Harry make his little speech about sorting and houses to young Albus Severusin the Epilogue .

Overall, I think JK did an admirable job of tying up lots and lots of loose ends, and in such a way that the entire book doesn't come off as a bunch of less than natty stitchery (which was my greatest worry as I opened the cover.)

What I wonder is, did she in fact use a several-years-old ending, as written? And if she did...why? Because I agree that it felt a bit thin and unsatisfying, and I personally would have enjoyed a little more of what had happened to pull the wizarding world back from the brink.

As to the rest, cried over Hedwig and Dobby; was surprised about Mad-Eye, Lupin, Tonks, and Fred; was kind of surprised Hagrid wasn't among the casualties; figured out the locket Horcrux at the end of Book 6 but was quite surprised and pleased by the final location and retrieval; I knew Snape wasn't a baddie, but his reason for following Dumbledore was one that had never occurred to me (honestly, did anyone else see that coming and I was just incredibly dense or something?); I think the flayed child in Kings Cross was indeed the portion of Voldemort's soul trapped within Nagini, hence D.'s comment about it being beyond their help; and yay on Luna, Neville, Ginny, the rest of the D.A., and Minerva!

I'll probably read it again fairly soon, just in case I mentally elided stuff in my eagerness to finish.

And then they order cappuchino"

Nah, espresso and cappuchino have gone decidedly down-market in the last few years (at least).

After all, what they get isn't necessarily good cappuchino.

She has said in interviews that she revised the epilog since she first composed it (she always said it would need rewriting), including changing the fates of three characters.

From an interview last year:

"The final chapter is hidden away, although it's now changed very slightly. One character got a reprieve. But I have to say two die that I didn't intend to die."

Young Dumbledore and Grindelwald.

Syd #48: honestly, did anyone else see that coming and I was just incredibly dense or something?

If you're talking about "Snape loves Lily" then that's been a pet theory in HP fandom for a long time.

Lis Riba #50: I'm wondering which characters she's talking about.

The most reasonable answer would be that Draco Malfoy got the reprieve, and Lupin and Tonks got the chop.

There's "The Next Generation" plot point: another orphan!

But I loved it all the same. Snape's a good guy, because he loved Lilly, and he killed Dumbledore at his own request. Exactly what I figured out from the last book. (OK I thought he was dying from drinking the potion in the cave and had told Snape telepathically - I'd forgotton the ring) And I never got the cloak - but then none of the pure-bloods ever did either, and they presumably had read the fairy tale.

Not sure I take the explanation about why Harry didn't die in the Forest - Harry's blood in V? I prefer to think of it as, since he owned the cloak, the stone and was the true master of the wand he had all three hallows and so was effectively immortal at that point. Hey, maybe Dumbledore didn't want to tell him that, so he made up the story about the blood.

Oh and personally I figure the flayed thing in the station is the portion of Voldemorts soul that's still in him. V zaps Harry and they both pass out. Seems reasonable to think they both end up in the same place.

On the same note, if only one character got a reprieve, it's likely to be Malfoy, since he's the only one there with a child whose other parent isn't identified as a known character.

I'm fine with the epilogue. I didn't need to have anything else tied up, or see what any characters in specific did; the purpose the epilogue served for me was to show that the characters didn't just survive the war against Voldemort, but afterwards, lived. Once the rubble was cleared and the mourning was over, they picked up their lives and lived them as loving, growing people, not damaged things. The wheels of life kept turning.

I liked that a lot.

54: Since one of the kids refers to him as "our Teddy", and Harry's his godfather, I suspect Harry and the extended Weasley family were closely involved. (Though as a more sarcastic reviewer pointed out, a 17-year-old fugitive on a dangerous quest during a time of war is perhaps not the safest choice as your child's godfather.)

We knew from book 3 that Crookshanks was an unusually talented cat, but I had no idea just how much.

Of course, now I'll have to go through the earlier books again, looking for whatever clues tipped off everyone else. Unless it was simply a case of "Wouldn't it be cool if...?" that turned out to be right...

Andy @ #55, I too thought it was the potion, and furthermore I thought Snape had made it for Voldemort in the Bad Old Days and either recognized the symptoms or was reading Dumbledore's mind. Rowling's version makes more sense.

#43: Rowling certainly did lay down a good many clues ahead of time, but it seemed to me that both Dumbledore's back story and the lore of the Deathly Hallows showed up in this book more or less out of left field. Both worked decently well in the context of the present book, but I think the overall series would have been strengthened had both matters been more clearly foreshadowed early on.

#10/#58: More to the point, the epilogue silently raises at least one other question of wizardly medical/social practice -- namely, the astonishing patience of all four principals in waiting at least seven years from the end of the main action to have children. (First-years Albus S. and Rose are necessarily eleven; James, to whom his parents wrote thrice weekly the prior year, is almost certainly twelve and the oldest of the five kids.)

Three or four years I can see, especially given that Ginny's younger to start with (and that in all likelihood, Harry, Ron & Hermione do after all need to complete their seventh-year studies). But seven years? Especially for Hermione & Ron? The mind boggles.

Anyway, this one should have been entitled Harry Potter and the Grail Hallows. Note the appearance of the Spear of Antioch, Excalibur, the Tarnkappe, and the Holy Grail itself.

I was disappointed in one way: the appearance of Dudley as a late-bloomer would have been lovely.

(My own take on the series is that books Five and Six, though not unpleasant, are the Harry Potter equivalent of Season Five of Babylon Five - having promised the fans that there would be seven books, the author was obliged to construct them as well as she could in spite of the Story, which would have preferred to pick up the pace and finish itself, already.)

For those who wonder why I'm pleased that so many scenes were off-screen rather than on-screen, I offer Terry Rossio and the Mystery of Point of View. (With special guest appearance by Will Shetterly!)

For those who wish that the book had lingered longer on the noble sacrifices of some of my favorite characters: I offer North by Northwest and the Amazing 43-Second Wrapup. In the rush to the finish, one cannot afford to slow down, even for Tonks.

But I had the sense that the metatextual reason for its existence was the most important: nobody can now demand another book about Harry Potter.

(Previous generation, next generation, sure. And -- those of us partial to Bujold could imagine a story about a hero who's a forty-year-old dad with his kids in school. But I don't think we're the ones who will be subjecting Rowling to temptation. :)

I thought it was poetic justice that Draco served the side of light by doing what he was best at - being a helpless pawn, unable to act effectively on his own, who is controlled by one authority figure after another. In the end, it was his mother's desire to reclaim him that made the difference at a crucial moment, not anything that he did.

And hey, did anybody else on the planet other than me think that the Dursleys would turn out to be important somehow? Turns out I was totally wrong, but I figured they'd have something to do in the last book other than be mean to Harry (excepting Dudley) one last time. I was hoping for a Horcrux to be hidden at Privet Drive, but no such luck.

MAO

I had a feeling that Lupin was marked for death -- all of the Marauders are gone now. Seems like the characters that are about to die kind of fade away for a while, and/or show themselves to be less than spotlessly clean. But did Tonks have to die, too, leaving an orphan behind?

I felt that Snape was marked for death after all that he'd done and appeared to have done. But I was hoping he'd have a more heroic send-off than that. I guess he had to keep his secrets from the Dark Lord right until the end, when Harry collected his thoughts, and knowing Harry's connection with Voldemort, he couldn't even reveal them to Harry before then.

Hoorah for Neville! I knew the kid had it in him. The Sorting Hat didn't put him in Gryffindor for nothing, after all those years that fans thought he should have been in Hufflepuff.

Boo, hiss to Luna's father for caving in and betraying Harry.

Ironic, I thought, that after years of trying to overcome people's reluctance to say the Dark Lord's name, that in the end, it turns out that the people who refused to say it were right all along.

I thought Wormtail's death was way too much of a throwaway. He owed Harry his life, and payback should have been more than a mere moment's hesitation.

Draco's role was played just right. He learned real quick that being a Death Eater isn't a glamorous thing, and hateful though the little niblick is, I'm glad that he wasn't a killer after all. But even though Harry saved his life, he never became Harry's best bud. That would have been too saccharine.

Making up with Dudley was a bit, well, almost-but-not-quite believable. We never saw the Dursleys again, and I wonder if it was even necessary to put them in the story at all?

I was sure we'd see the Department of Mysteries again. There are so many unanswered questions from Book 5. What IS the veil, where does it lead to, and why is it there? How did it kill Sirius, yet leave no body behind? What is behind the locked door that Harry couldn't open? And what was up with the brains, the hummingbird belljar, and some of the other goodies we saw?

The epilogue was kind of cute, a sigh of relief, and you KNOW that young fans would be demanding to know what happened to the character afterwards. I don't know why people get all cheesed that a handful of heterosexual couples found happiness in each other. Besides, it puts closure on the series, vastly reduces the possibility that there will be a "Harry Potter Book 8," and even if there's temptation to write a story about the next generation (which doesn't seem likely at this point), it won't be Voldemort who rises again. It also puts all the Harry-Hermione vs Harry-Ginny vs Ginny-Draco "shippers" to rest.

Two books I hope JKR writes just for her fans:
1) Hogwarts, a History
2) The Mysteries of the Department of Mysteries, Exposed

I loved the lore of the Elder Wand. Draco being the master of a wand he's never touched, and nobody realising it except Harry, is way, way cool. Also that Expelliarmus - Harry's signature move, according to Lupin - should be the one that finally does Voldemort in. I had worried that Harry was going to have to AK him, and it just wouldn't have been right. And look, at last the wizarding world has some literature! Up until Beedle the Bard, it's always seemed like no wizard ever read fiction. I always thought that was odd considering that the author is, after all, an author and clearly a keen reader herself.

I would have liked to see more Snape. Harry should have had a big confrontation with him at some point. I also wanted to see the Dursleys again at the end and find out how they got on and whether Dudley was really becoming nice.

Werewolfism is an acquired characteristic, so it's not genetic, surely. If the children of werewolves are werewolves it's probably because their parents inevitably bite them (but Lupin wouldn't, because he has Wolfsbane Potion). Otherwise I suppose what Teddy inherits is a social stigma.

Tonks has the baby when? Before the end of the school year, for certain, but is it really almost ten months later? (Mid March at the earliest.) So... is the timeline badly broken, or is Rowling implying pre-marital hanky-panky?

If it is the latter, I only have one thing to say:

Remus, you dog...

I agree with everyone else that it feels like Lupin & Tonks were the previously-unplanned deaths. And it created what I feel to have been a wasted plot point. When Harry has his "will you go back or go on" moment he knows that he has an orphaned godson. And way back earlier he made this big ranty point to Lupin about how you don't walk out on your kid. So why in the world doesn't this come when he's making the decision to return? There's just Dumbledore mumbling something vague about "families being broken up". Now maybe that moment of choice scene was worked up before the decision to casually kill off Tonks & Lupin, but then it's a fault in the continuity check.

Writerious @ #73, that's why they call them mysteries!

There's a song in the musical of "The Secret Garden" called "Lily's Eyes," and now I can't get it out of my head.

I love the way Neville turned out!

I loved the early entendre about wand-work - it's nice when Rowling makes her own fan-fic jokes.

Don't forget the Lady of the Lake.

It's very cleverly written, thorough, and exposes weak points in the plot, including many that didn't strike me on first reading.

Treachery. (E.g.The old "Your shoelace is untied!" trick.)

I mean, seriously, how many people knew while reading the Chamber of Secrets that Dumbledore's pheonix would show up because Harry thought of him? Or that you could pull a magic sword out of the sorting hat? It's the cavalry arriving in the end to rescue Harry in friends who've gotten themselves way over their heads, bringing him a concealed weapon capable of killing the snake, healing the snake bite that would have otherwised killed him, and giving him an elevator ride back to the surface. I mean, seriously, Harry and his crew basically stumbled recklessly into a heavily armed crack den, and some character introduced in the first third of the book arrives as the cavalry to save his butt.

Even when Han Solo came back "out of the blue", at the end of episode 4, Luke had already gotten to near the end of the trench on his own, and all Han actually did was shoot one Tie Fighter, which got Vader off his tail. Not to mention, it wasn't actually quite so out of the blue, since Han is human, and Luke actually asked him to help, and it was the last scene right before the attack on the death star, whereas, the pheonix is a bird, and Harry didn't plead with it to help him down in the Chamber of Secrets only to have the bird tell him he's got a price on his head and so on and so forth....

Now, as I'm reading this whole business in Deathly Hallows about the wands, and the "master" wands, and how Harry is the master of Voldemort's wand, because draco failed to kill dumbledore, confused the hell out of me. As I'm reading it, I'm just completely turned around, and can't make any sense of it, but it seems like it's nothing more than another arrival of the cavalry. I don't know of anything up until the Order of the Pheonix that says anything about this "master wand" business. And it seems like her magic is completely arbitrary and based on whatever is convenient at the moment for a plot turn. And no, if I got the whole "master" wand thing wrong, you don't have to correct me about how it works based on what you find out after the fact. The only thing I'm really interested in is anything about the wands that we learn before Harry and Voldy face off, and that bit of magical rule affects the plot.

I've read two of the books so far, and both of them give me the same sort of feeling as if I'd read some story about some teenagers who watch aliens invade earth and they decide to go off and fight them on their own, and so they pack some lunches and a toothbrush and go off to war, and walk a long time, and we find out their lunch pail never gets empty, and they keep walking, and a week later, as they happen over a hill, this Alien warship comes over them, and blasts their lunch pail, and the kid picks up his toothbrush and for the very first time, mentions that it has a button labeled "proton cannon", pushes it, and destroys the warship.

Technically, one could argue that such an ending is fair because the kid had everything he needed and because the lunch pail was magical, it should be enough of a hint that maybe everything in it is magical and is not as it seems. But I always feel that the basic idea is that you present the reader with the character, the rules of the world they operate in, the restrictions and the capabilities, and then you have the big finale, with no additional "Oh, yeah, and when you look at the mirror and think of the sorcerer's stone but don't want it for yourself, then you'll get the stone".

The two books I've read, and the movies I've seen so far, all seem to have endings that involve a "Oh yeah, I forgot to mention..." twist at the very climax that completely changes the balance of the power, without anything other than some vague, "hint" at the beginning that Han has a space ship and can shoot Tie Fighters and that you never see him through the rest of the movie until the very end when he shows up to save Luke is a sufficient "hint" that it somehow disqualifies it as the deus ex machina that it is.

When Harry stumble into the spider's den in the dark forest, or more accurately, get carried off to the spider's den, and meet Hagrid's old pet, by all rights, they're dead.

That the magic car shows up right at that moment is pure "cavalry to the rescue" out of the blue twist.

It doesn't appear to be a problem for Rowling. She's obviously found plenty of people to pay good money for books with deus ex machina's running around all over the place.

But I think reading this thing about the "master" wand is the last straw. If everything is possible, nothing is interesting, and in Rowling's world, everything is always possible, because she can spring information on you at any time, even after the big finale.

I saw an interview on TV when Big Trouble in Little China came out and Russell described Jack as "Someone who thinks he's John Wayne when he's really Eddie Hascall."

I could feel Rowling tying up the loose ends and giving each character a satisfying conclusion throughout the book. Should that be annoying? It was very well done. Dobby's death was touching.

The only qualms I had came in the last few chapters. Tonks' and Lupin's deaths were meaningless--to the plot and to the emotional state of the characters. Lupin deserved more.

I agree strongly with comment #2: I thought Snape would die differently, and his death didn't fit his life. He didn't choose death or make a sacrifice there. Voldemort never knew of Snape's betrayal. Snape's death should have been more important than it was.

I think those two elements were sloppy, or maybe just poor choices, but there was so much packed into this book that some of the decisions were probably made out of convenience. There was much plot to get through, and so many loose ends to tie up, that some elements got lost. Still, I think this might be the best book of the series.

One of those sources is a somewhat gullible man who believes every conspiracy theory in the wizarding world. The fact that he is very occasionally right does not make him right all the time. He is an unreliable source of information. And he makes radish hats.

The other is a wand maker who is the recognized master of wand lore, who seems to find essentially nothing in the world to be as important as wand lore. He probably knows almost nothing outside of his field, but he is a master in his own specialty.

Radish hat man is the source of "this wand makes you invincible."

OCD Wand Guy is the source of "Well it makes you much more powerful, but you can be beaten"

I do believe that Voldemort knows of Snape's betrayal - Harry tells him.

Whether it registers or not - who knows?

And Andy 55, to say that it reads like a novelisation of a film is to underplay considerably the screaming horror that must now be overtaking the person who is presumably already tasked with the screenplay.
1) it's impossibly long;
2) it's impossibly packed;
3) its action sequences are interrupted by frequent gobbets of multi-page plot exposition by Dumbledore, Snape, and practically everybody else.
It's going to have to be a three-parter all by itself.

But I was one of the ones who felt Jackson should have left Bombadil in Fellowship and was seriously surprised that the chapter "The Scouring of the Shire" was left out of Return. So I lean toward more rather than less.

I'd like to gently suggest that it may not be entirely productive to attempt to deconstruct the plot of books you haven't actually read. While I'd be the first to agree that the books have flaws, I think you picked very bad examples.

Now, as I'm reading this whole business in Deathly Hallows about the wands, and the "master" wands, and how Harry is the master of Voldemort's wand, because draco failed to kill dumbledore, confused the hell out of me.

Well, it didn't confuse the hell out me, because I'd read the book. It's true that Rowling sometimes pulls stuff out of left field, and it's also true that the Elder Wand and its associated lore were never mentioned in earlier books, but she does provide a fully adequate explanation (I thought) in this one, well before the fact. When Harry explained why he was the rightful master of the wand, I wasn't confused; my reaction was more along "Of course! Why didn't I think of that?" lines.

When Harry stumble into the spider's den in the dark forest, or more accurately, get carried off to the spider's den, and meet Hagrid's old pet, by all rights, they're dead. That the magic car shows up right at that moment is pure "cavalry to the rescue" out of the blue twist.

Again, you're judging somebody else's version of the story, not Rowling's. That was one place where I thought the movies left out something important. In the book there's more back story about the car, and the rescue makes a good deal more sense.

I'm not trying to claim the books are flawless, just that you should either read them and be able to discuss their actual faults, or at least stop blaming Rowling for what a Hollywood screenwriter or some anonymous online dude made of her story.

Harry and his friends have been badly served by their magical education. They have learned a lot of tricks but they have no framework from which to innovate. Adult wizards of long experience somehow create useful artifacts and new spells. Fred and George have managed to pick up the trick, but probably due to long hours spent experimenting and self-teaching rather than attending classes. (Even James Potter manages to make the very useful Maurader's Map? And Snape develops his signature combat spell while still at Hogwarts.) But Harry, Ron, and Hermione perform no magic they haven't been explicitly taught. Hermione's magic bag is perhaps the sole exception.

So instead of trying to develop Horcrux finders, Death-Eater communication blocks, infiltration tools, or better combat spells... they sit on their rear ends waiting for the plot to advance.

Harry still has the go-it-alone problem. He's needed his friends to overcome obstacles before. He should have learned that he needs allies--- and informed allies--- to defeat Voldemort. But we're back to the usual routine of secrecy and Harry trying to solve things himself, until help is shoved down his throat for the big climax.

If Harry can't think of ways to thwart Voldemort, he could at least periodically raid the Ministry of Magic and free captured Muggle-born. Perhaps some of them have ideas he doesn't. Maybe a campaign of attrition against the Death Eaters would save lives (that were instead sacrificed as a delaying action at Hogwarts.) Heck, anything that annoys He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named seems to thin the ranks of Death Eaters quite rapidly.

(Also I am annoyed at Harry for getting his owl killed. If she had been left to find her own way instead of being caged up...)

Once the heroes manage to get captured, the plot rolls along nicely but it strikes me too much as a James Bond-ish "wait for the villain to advance the plot." Had Harry decided to take a more active role, perhaps the prisoners could have been sprung from the Malfoy estate that much sooner.

I'm surprised anyone is surprised he still has that problem. Harry was emotionally abused by the people who raised him--I'm not surprised at all that he continues to have difficulty asking anyone for help, when it was long since engraved on his brain that he couldn't expect help, ever. It's not rational or reasonable but it's very, very accurate to the way abuse survivors think, and unfortunately he's just had that viewpoint reinforced by people in power during his time in school.

Also, those who said that Ron did nothing: it was his idea to get the basilisk fangs from the Chamber of Secrets, and he who managed to get there.

Writerious@73: The rooms in the Department of Mysteries represented, well, mysteries. Time, space, intelligence; the archway of course was death, which is why Harry and Luna heard voices from behind the veil but nobody else did. (During the fight scene they even get called the "Time Room" and "Brain Room" and so on...and of course the prophecy storage chamber is off of the Time Room.) I somehow got the impression that the unlockable door was love, though I can't adduce much textev in that regard. Perhaps it was mystery itself.

And it's stretching the truth to call Snape a "good guy", I think. He did become a Death Eater off his own bat, remember. I see him as someone who came to goodness late and with difficulty; the Sorting Hat was right about the eleven-year-old Severus. His death, so lacking in dignity, was surely the ultimate act of redemptive humility.

Interesting, though, that Snape's motivations all along were so simple while Dumbledore's were so complex.

Harry and his friends have been badly served by their magical education. They have learned a lot of tricks but they have no framework from which to innovate. Adult wizards of long experience somehow create useful artifacts and new spells. [snip] But Harry, Ron, and Hermione perform no magic they haven't been explicitly taught.

Remember, they haven't done their last term yet so maybe that's what you learn in year 7, which would make a lot of sense to me in terms of how their education progresses: years 1 - 6 give you your foundation and year 7 they teach you how to weave it all together and make it your own.

Well, yeah, but I was thinking of the "intentional Horcruxes that Voldy actually meant to make" variety. I thought it would be funny if one Horcrux turned out to be some stupid little tchotschke above the Dursley's fireplace, or Dudley's beloved teddy bear, or something.

And it's stretching the truth to call Snape a "good guy", I think.

Not really, depending on what I meant by "good guy". I didn't say he was good from start to finish, pure as the morning dew and so on. When the chips were down and it came time for Snape to make his final choices, they were all good ones, even though it took a long time before they were revealed as such.

One of the contrasts between the good and bad guys in this book is the "go-it-alone" problem that you mentioned. We keep seeing Voldemort (through Harry's convenient scar connection) travelling alone across Europe, intent on achieving the one thing he needs. When he needs other people's assistance he makes sure they do exactly as he tells them, on pain of punishment. They have no choice, no free will (with the exception of Bellatrix, who appears to be unhinged anyway).

Compare that with the good guys and how they deal with the Horcruxes. Harry destroys the diary, without really understanding what it is. Dumbledore destroys the ring, after almost killing himself because he DOES understand what it is. Ron destroys the locket in a scene that finally justifies, to me, his position as Harry's best friend. Hermione, with help from Ron (wonderful turning-upside-down of things!), destroys the goblet. Crabbe accidentally destroys the diadem. Voldemort zaps the one in Harry. Neville lops off the snake's head.

None of them acted through fear or compulsion. With the exception of Crabbe and Voldemort, they were choosing to act based on trust, friendship, duty, a sense of what's right and what needs to be done. Teamwork of the best kind.

There are a lot of things that seem to be done by lone wizards which, from a Muggle point of view, you would expect to find at a university. Look at Mr. Weasley: he wokrs in the Ministry but his interest in Muggle would easily fit into a university.

Maybe too much has been drawn into the clutches of the Ministry; maybe there was a University College of Magic. Look at how Dumbledore was always trying to fend them off, even before Voldemort was an obvious threat.

I can see there being a resolution of that in the seven-year gap implied by the epilogue. And Hermione, at least, is a natural to be one of the first students of an independent college.

Look at what the Ministry does, even before the takeover. Wizards are going to say it was a concentration of too much power: make the law, send out the enforcers, try the accused, and carry out punishment.

Think Psi Corps.

(OK, you write the crossover fanfic.)

For example, book one, Sorcerer's Stone, it turns out that the stone is hidden in the mirror, and the only way you can get it is to want it without using it (or some such thing, I can't recall Dumbledore's post hoc explanation exactly). That little bit of information is withheld until after the big climax. A new rule to how the universe operates is introduced to explain the final battle after the dust has settled.

It is sufficiently out of the blue that it would have been impossible to predict that it was the case.

you're judging somebody else's version of the story, ... In the book there's more back story about the car, and the rescue makes a good deal more sense.

I read the book, and I don't recall any backstory to the car.

And more importantly, you seem to miss the point about going into the den of giant spiders, putting yourself and your friends in grave danger, with absolutely no plan of getting out.

Harry didn't have a plan, he stumbled into far more than he could handle, he and his friends were put into far more peril than they could possibly handle, and then Rowling calls in the cavalry out of the blue to rescue them.

Do you understand that if they either had the car from the beginning as they went into the forest, or if they had the car on standby to call in when needed that the "peril" Harry was in would have been far less?

If Ron's brothers had been in the car, with a walkie talkie, on standby to do an evac, then as the spiders start closing in, you'd know they had one more card to play.

Because she hides this information from the reader, it is false peril. You think they're in more peril than they really are, because she's witheld information from you.

Fawkes, Dumbledore's phoenix was similarly injected out of the blue in the finale. If they had gone to dumbledore's office and gotten Fawkes to go into the Chamber with them, or at least had some sort of arrangement with him to come when called, then the trip down into the chamber would have been far less "peril" than Rowling wrote it.

Rowling wrote it as if Harry, Ron, and Hermione are going into the chamber by themselves, and then, when things seem completely unsalvagable, Fawkes appears out of the blue.

Rowling does this repeatedly, creating false tension where you think you know everything that Harry and friends have at their disposal, and when they've exhausted all those things, you assume they're dead meat, only to discover that they have artillery and helicopters on standby. You know, the artillery and helicopters they saw while shopping for books at Daigon Alley.

If you knew they had artillery and helicopters ahead of time, then the scene wouldn't have felt as much tension, so she doesn't tell you they're part of the list of Harry's resources. She inserts a hint about them on page 50, so that by page 300 you'll have forgotten about them, and then at the big climax, they'll appear when needed.

Put another way, just because the hero bumps into a camp of cavalry on page 50, if the cavalry are unrelated to the hero, and are never seen again, then it is still a deus ex machina when the cavalry comes to rescue the hero on page 500.

Just because Rowling lets Harry ride the flying car or see Fawkes in Dumbledore's office, on page 50, it's still a deus ex machina if you don't see them again until the big finale on page 300.

Now, a question. When and why did Draco become master of the wand? Is there some scene in Book 6 that I've forgotten where he picks up Dumbledore's wand? Thanks!

The reality for childen — and, indeed, for virtually all students of the sciences who are not studying at the PhD level or above — is that virtually every action gets its understandable explanation post hoc. I'm supervising my son in a high-school chemistry class at present, and the the experiments (and, for that matter, textbook) are written using exactly the same sequence as one finds throughout the series:
* Harry, often with the assistance of his friends, learns just enough about the theory behind the method to perform an "experiment" under controlled conditions
* Harry performs the experiment under uncontrolled conditions (usually without a clean lab, either) and obtains certain data that he understands, and certain data that he does not
* An instructor assists Harry in understanding some of the data in terms of theory he has not yet been exposed to, and points out that some of the data cannot yet be explained and/or point toward another experiment that must be performed to confirm an expected explanation

This is a distinct contrast to the neat, complete explanations of everything that are provided after the events in too much "classical" (that is, Victorian and Modernist) fiction (or, worse yet, in detailed prophetic materials that, with our outside-the-system perspective and ability to stop and use other reference works, is far easier for us to understand as readers than it would be for the characters); LOTR, for example, falls prey to this problem, which is its principle flaw. This is far from limited to speculative fiction, either; if you don't believe me, take a look at just about any non-Postmodernist novel that concerns itself even a little bit with political maneuvering as a central plot element (the contrast between Graham Greene and John LeCarré exposes this in a disturbingly "obvious" way... that is, it's obvious if you're looking for it).

In short, Rowling understands the Einsteinian/quantum mechanical concept of "reference frames," even if she never explicitly describes what she's doing that way. Sure, her use of them is flawed; but this particular talking dog deserves praise for the vocabulary it has rather than criticism for the vocabulary that it doesn't.

Taking book 4 as the center, 5 is like 3, 6 is like 2, and 7 is like 1, though in all cases the later books are much darker, of course. Both 3 and 5 are about Sirius, feature Trelawney's true prophecies, and show the government as villain. Both 2 and 6 are about untrustworthy magic books, reveal the history of young Tom Riddle, feature secret rooms in Hogwarts, and spotlight the Harry/Ginny relationship.

Book 7 has several direct quotes from book 1, and both have magic items to grant immortality, tasks for each member of the team to do (in book 1, the challenges at the end; in book 7, each Horcrux to get destroyed), reveal Snape not to be a villain in the end (Actually, I was surprised that that wasn't more of a theme of this latest book.)

Probably this is all just me making things up of a Paul-is-dead variety, but I wonder if it was on purpose. Anyway it's fun to think about, which is why I bring it up.

You know, I attended school in England for one year when I was 13, and maintained a long correspondence with my best friend from that year as we completed our educations. This rather aptly sums up the greatest weakness of the British style of education. We learned tricks, but no framework, in pretty much every class. It's possible that this was a deficiency in my particular school (which was deficient in everything from funding to supervision) but the impression I had was that this approach was largely the result of the high-stakes testing they did. (They had just moved from O-Levels to GCSEs the year I attended, and all the teachers were emphasizing that you couldn't completely fuck off in class now because your classwork counted for a whopping 25% of your grade, or something like that, instead of the big final test being 100%.) Since Harry Potter's educational system uses exactly the same high stakes testing (with OWLs instead of O-Levels and NEWTs instead of A-Levels) it's not surprising that his teachers focus on reproducible skills rather than theory. Except for Umbridge, of course...

"At Hogwarts, help will be given to those that ask for it."

In addition, Dumbledore says to Harry afterwards that he must have shown true loyalty to Dumbledore, because ONLY that would have summoned Fawkes to him. Plus, Harry carries a wand with one of Fawkes' feathers as the core...

As for the Sword of Griffindor, it's obvious that Rowling is ringing changes on the Matter of Britain throughout the books. (Thank the gods, she left out the Arthurian love triangle, though I'd be willing to bet Ginny's given name is Guenivere.) Note, in Severus' final memory the sword can only be found or given when the potential bearer shows "valor and need."

WRT the ending of Sorceror's Stone, Dumbledore modifies the enchantment on the Mirror of Erised, to hide the Stone. Normally the Mirror only shows your the "deepest desire of your heart." Dumbledore does boast about his idea of having someone get it only because they don't want to use it to Harry.

Has anyone else noticed that the final sequence of Sorceror's Stone is a template of the action in the final book?

Or maybe she was just good at potions? Girls can be good at something without getting help from a boy, you know, and the implication in the books is that both Harry's parents are highly talented. I seem to recall that in the first book Snape goes on a bit about how few people really appreciate potions; if Lily was also good at them, that was probably an added bonus for his fantasies about her - a fellow potions-geek!

I see more than enough sexist elements in the books without making up more.

The basic idea is that people often think they know some topic, and by having them try to actually do something, and fail somewhere, they're much more likely to listen to new ideas, and they're much more likely to be able to see where they failed, and much more likely to see where they don't know something, or have made some false assumption about something.

I've used the process. It works.

The thing is it works in the real world, where the basic scientific assumption is that the rules of the universe do not change, we just don't know what they are, and by experiment we can figure out what they are because we assume they don't change, they are consistent, and we assume the rules are not consciously aware of our experiments.

But I don't read fiction to learn the rules about someone's imaginary world. I read to come to care about some character, to care that he overcomes the obstacles in his way to achieve whatever goal it is he wants.

In the real world, the rules are fixed and unknown and we discover them through experiment. Fiction is not like the real world. Fiction is like a game. In a game, someone makes up the rules.

If you want to play a fun game, you first learn all the rules, then you play. It's no fun to play a game where the person who made the rules, knows all the rules, but you don't.

There's a story about a guy who is in a foreign town, and goes into a bar to play some poker. Everyone knows everyone else, but he doesn't know anyone. At some point, one of the players puts down a 2,4,6,8,10, (crap hand) and declares "bingo", then explains to the guy that if you have a hand that adds up to thirty, you can declare "bingo" and it beats any other hand. The others at the table confirm that this is a "house rule". So the guy shrugs, loses that game, but keeps playing. Later, he gets a crap hand, but it adds up to thirty, so he goes all in, and puts down his cards saying "bingo". The other guys shake their heads saying "You can only say bingo once in a night". Since someone else called "bingo", no one else can. The other guys confirm this is the house rule. So the guy loses everything.

THe rules are withheld from the player to take advantage of his ignorance.

Rowling does something similar. She doesn't send HHR into the forest looking for spiders with the magic car, she invents a "house rule" so that when all seems lost, you the reader are so scared for Harry and comapany, and then she can save them for another book.

So, for the purposes of learning something in the real world, yes, doing experiments, playing, making mistakes, learning hands on, is extremely important.

But Harry Potter isn't the real world. It is, basically, a game, a set of rules that explain how the board (Harry's world) and the pieces (the characters) can move and interact. And Rowling is telling us the rules as we go along, rather than up front. So every time Harry is in a pinch, because the rules, board, pieces, all seem to look like Harry's dead meat, she'll say something like "Oh, I forgot to mention, that car way over here on the other side fo the board, that car can now show up and rescue Harry". Or Fawkes, or the mirror, or whatever.

If it were like chess, it's like she introduced the board and the basic moves of each piece, but doesn't explain "castling" until after someone does it during a game. oops. forgot to mention that little tidbit. What you thought was a perfect setup, the other guy can easily slip out of.

This is meaningless and unactionable information. It is, at most, Rowling saying she reserves the right to call in the cavalry when things get dire.

Had Harry, Ron, Hermione, gone into the chamber with Fawkes and the magic sword of Griffindor, would you have felt Harry was in the same amount of peril than when he went in, essentially, unarmed and clueless?

If not, then Rowling created false peril in the final climatic scene in the Chamber of Secrets.

Harry was lousy at potions until he got Snape's book with all the notes in it. Why is it sexist if Harry's mother was also lousy at potions until she got help from Snape? Maybe her gender and her skill are unrelated.

In fiction? Sure. Any story where you know the inventory of characters, skills, and supplies by the time you start reading the final climax.

The ending is then an outcome of the individuals working together, using their combined skills, using whatever supplies they have at their disposal, and failure has consequences rather than some "do-over" where the author adds new characters, skills, or inventory, not previously mentioned to be known and available.

"Braveheart" is a really good example. "Wrath of Khan" is another. See also "Empire Strikes Back". Although "Return of the Jedi" kind of cheesed it with the teddy bears, if you can squint and imagine them to be on Planet Wookie as Lucas had imagined, then it works. "The Searchers" is another.

I'm not sure how many examples you want, but that's a few.

As another example, "Alien" would be a great example of true peril. By the time you get to the final scene, you as a viewer know enough of the alien, of Ripley's capabilities, of the ship, of the surroundings, that the ending contains no cavalry rescues of any kind. You know the players, you know the board, you know the rules of the universe. And the finale works inside of those constraints.

Even "Aliens" manages to give you everything you need to know so that by the time Ripley says "Get away from her, you bitch", you're probably cheering for her, and even if you're not, you are NOT muttering, "Where the fck did that exoskeleton come from and how did she know how to drive it????"

Whether or not these stories worked for you or not other reasons is a different matter.

Given how much you seem to dislike the books, and that you haven't actually read five out of the seven, I'm also wondering a little why you're in this thread in the first place. It looks like your objective is to recenter the discussion around your mostly uninformed opinions and force people who want to discuss the books to instead spend their time arguing with you, which is a tactic that reminds me unpleasantly of what you've done in a few other threads lately.

I don't think this pattern continues - I didn't get that feeling from the last couple of books at all. It did feel that the heroes were making what were, ultimately, the choices that mattered. This is, for me, on of the strengths of the series - the characters really do grow up.

But that isn't the only interpretation of what Matt is saying at #110.

the reason Lily did so well, presumably, was that she was getting help from Snape.

Snape is one of the best potions wizard ever. Good enough to become potions professor at hogwarts. So, it isn't sexist to think that he could take any potions student and make them measurably better. Or take a great potions student and make them stellar.

I agree with Robert C at #90 and was also a little disappointed by Snape's death - at the end of the last book I was certain he was working for Dumbledore (too many misdirections and reveals for that not to be the case, finally), but I thought the purpose to Snape killing Dumbledor was so Draco wouldn't be made to, to save Draco's soul. So the "Dumbledore was dying anyway" bit actually took away some of the pathos for me there.

My prediction would then have been a heroic/dramatic death for Snape as he stood up to Voldemort, and I agree with Coyote at #2 that the Unbreakable Vow was already the perfect setup for that. Being killed by the snake was a bit of a let down.

I generally found the "it's my wand because...", "aha, but what you don't know is it's really my wand because..." a bit confusing, but maybe that's the speed I was trying to get through the book to avoid accidental spoileration.

I had to reread the paragraph about Lupin and Tonks bodies several times, and look back to see if I'd missed something. When Tonks was first introduced I though she'd be killed (she's such a lovable minor character), but they both deserved a little more attention - did anyone else feel almost as though their deaths were just filling some kind of quota?

All in all, though, I loved the book and thought it had the same strengths and weaknesses as the rest of the series - JKR brought the sequence to a good, solid end, and gave me everything in the last book I could reasonably have asked for :D

Did the King's Cross chapter remind anyone of the Matrix, where Neo meets the Architect?

And lay off Ron, people. He not only saves Harry's ass and retrieves the sword, but remembers the fangs to destroy the Horcruxes. Not to mention he grows in understanding. In fact, all the juvenile characters grow, which is nice to see.

I got pissed off about Dobby, though. Although the funeral made up for it a little bit...

As to the final chapter I agree with Renatus @59. It's the "see? you can survive cataclismic events and have a real life" part. I think for kids reading this book it would be reassuring and satisfying. Not enough information for those like me who really, really knew what SHOULD happen :-), but enough to know that everything turned out ok.

And Greg? There's plenty of literature to your liking out there, I'm sure. Why make yourself miserable reading books you don't like? Life's too short to spend it fulminating...

Yeah, that was the point. The movie introduces the exoskeleton, establishes what it can do, establishes that Ripley can drive one. So when the climax comes, you're not going "What the hell is that?"

The flying car saving Harry from the spiders is a sort of "what the hell?" moment. Fawkes showing up with Griffendor's sword and tears-that-heal-any-wound-no-matter-how-fatal, that was more of a "WTF?" moment. Both show up in unexpected places, completely out of context. The car shows up in the magic forest months after it was seen leaving the whomping willow (It just hung around the grounds for months?). Fawkes shows up in the Chamber of Secrets because Harry wished for help. And up till that point, no one even knew where the chamber of secrets was located, but Fawkes finds it as soon as Harry makes his wish.

Ah, that's it. It's a world of wishful thinking.

I also liked the fact that many of the characters--including Snape--had non-dramatic deaths, and I also appreciated that the body count was so high. They did something difficult and dangerous. It was WAR. And in war lots of people die, and not everyone gets to die a heroic, tragic death where everyone is gathered around. I thought that Lupin an Tonks deaths off-screen (so to speak) emphasized that. (Much of this book also emphasized that when you're doing something important, you often have to miss important events in the lives of your friends and loved ones.)

And sometimes deaths--like Snape's-- are meaningless. That's just the way things are.

In other words, I thought she did a very good idea of making sure we saw that war is an ugly, dangerous thing, not to be undertaken lightly, because there's no coming back from death, even if you have a Resurrection Stone.

I also liked the slogging through the woods. Sure it was a bit boring, but any work that's good and important requires lots of boring leg work. Things shouldn't be too easy, and should require lots of wandering around, lost.

And *I* think the reason they all waited so long to have kids was so they could pursue their chosen careers before Harry and Ron settled down to become house-husbands.

It might be time to back away from the thread for a bit.

Do you wish to "disqualify" me from the thread because I don't meet the minimum requirements of having read all the books and liking every single one of them unabashadly?

Sorry. I just started reading the books a couple weeks ago, got through the first two and then stopped. But I couldn't figure out why. Then I saw "Order of the Pheonix" and started digging around trying to figure out how the last book was going to end the series. When I read the run-down of how "Deathly Hallows" plays out, that's when I realized what was bothering me about the first two.

It is primarily a young children's story based on wish fullfillment.

Which explains why the rules of the world aren't important. Harry has a ton of luck, and always gets what he needs. Not neccessarily what he wants (his parents remain dead, he must go back to the Dursley's, the adults never tell him what is going on, etc), but always what he needs (magic mirrors, magic cars, magic swords, magic birds, when he needs them to survive).

The real world doesn't work through wish fullfillment. But it is how children often view the world. It's just that the "magic", if it happens, happens through parents and adults who do things outside their worldview.

And it is the one mode of storytelling for which I cannot suspend disbelief. Maybe I wasn't born with that gene, or maybe the wish fullfillment fairy was beaten out of me as a child, or maybe something else, I don't know.

But at least I now know what was bugging me about the two books I did read. And if I do read the rest of the series, I know what sort of mood I'll have to be in to finish them.

The evidence is equally strong for Snape being so good at potions because Lily was privately tutoring him (as shown by all the notes in his book of what she told him). Why do you think he had any skill at all before she helped him out? She was a natural talent and a really superb teacher, good enough to raise his skill level dramatically.

Strawman argument. Bored now; I've seen your tactics before. You're coming across as a troll who's just here to bash the books and by extension everyone who likes them. I decline to feed you further.

I saw his goal as preserving what was left of Lily, not getting back at Voldemort. It mush have eaten at him that he was simultaneously preserving what was left of James.

In any case, if his actions were good, does the motivation matter? Everything he did from that moment on furthered the cause of the good guys, even if he was schmuck while he did it.

I do love the fact that everyone spent six books thinking that it was all about James, and finally got confronted with the fact that, no, James was nothing special, it was all about Lily.

And I do. Yes, he made his choices of who to join up with and was accountable for those, but at the same time, I think it was only a matter of time before he realized he was disgusted or frustrated with being a follower of Voldemort, and that his revenge didn't taste as good as he thought it did, especially considering his words to Dumbledore in his memories and his reactions to Dumbledore's words.

He's much too complex a character to be reduced to 'only a good guy if it's convienent'. Being a double agent is not very convienent.

Bored now

That reminds me - I kept seeing Buffy parallels while I was reading. Damn, I ought to have made notes or something. Did anyone else notice that?

STOP.

Please.

Also, you want deux ex machina? What else is The Lion the Witch and the Wardrobe?

But it is how children often view the world.
FYI, the books were children's books -- especially the first two. They starting getting more complex with three.

Which is fine by me, I also loved The Hobbit and the His Dark Materials trilogy.

Susan, I am personally of the "fellow potions-geek" school of thought. I agree that there is no evidence whatsoever to indicate that Snape ever tutored Lily.

C.A. Bridges, By their fruits shall you know them. It doesn't really matter why Snape turned to doing good things, merely that he did. There are things Snape did that had nothing to do with saving Harry: he saved Draco from killing Dumbledore, he objected when Phineas Nigellus used the word "Mudblood" to describe Hermione, when asked about letting people die, he replied "These days, only those I cannot save." Creating the wolfsbane potion for Lupin. Snape wasn't Mr. Nice Guy, but he wasn't merely acting out of revenge, even if that might have been his original motive.

Certainly when he came to Hogwarts as a student he was ambitious, and more focused on the ends than the means... much as Riddle was. Snape came from an extraordinarily challenging background (which had been hinted at before, and only fully revealed in DH) and he was surely focused on the idea that power would solve his problems. If sorting were done in, say, year three, maybe Snape would have learned that the means are as important -- or more so -- than the ends.

In the end, it was finally revealed that Snape was perhaps the most courageous player on the field, by far. While certainly he had made terrible mistakes -- done awful things -- he was trying to atone for them. By agreeing to Dumbledore's wish that Snape kill him (rather than allow Draco to) he was at the same time agreeing to end the life of the only living individual who knew Snape's real motivation, who knew that Snape had, in fact, chosen to work for the Order, and against Voldemort. There would have been no "get out of jail free" card for Snape, and his name would be infamous forever, for all the wrong reasons.

And, as J.K. has pointed out countless times in the series, it was all for love.

Hey, Greg? Not liking the genre doesn't disqualify you from discussing the book. Not having read the book might make you ask yourself what it is that you're trying to accomplish by posting close to ten percent of the comments in a thread full of people who have.

You have definite thoughts, and that's fine. You've expressed them, and people have disagreed. That doesn't mean they didn't understand what you said. It means they didn't agree with it.

Ramping it up and repeating yourself aren't going to convince anyone. All you're accomplishing at this point is giving everyone the impression that you've given up on (or weren't looking for) dialogue and you're simply trying to annoy people who have offended you by not adopting your POV.

That's really not a terrific way to interact with people.

Also, not knowing what your strengths are going in? They call it "life" who do speak of it.

I always thought Lily had helped Snape with potions, or else that they were both good, and by working together were spectacular.

One thing I really liked throughout the series was that no one is Pure Good or Pure Evil--Hagrid drinks too much, Tom Riddle never had love given to him, Ron loses his nerve and ditches his friends, the Malfoys are devoted to their family, Dumbledore thought the fascists had a good idea going as a young man, Snape's loyalties flipped when he saw death eaters from the victim's POV. I really wish they hadn't had the kids using Unforgivable Curses, but I get that it's part of that theme. There's a lot more complexity there than in average children's literature.

I haven't seen any mentions of the password to the headmaster's office--that Snape's password was "Dumbledore", that just killed me, even before we'd seen his memories. I thought his death was appropriate; it showed that Voldemort didn't care even for the wellbeing of his closest associate.

I'm not sure where you get the sexism from?

So far as I can see, Harry would be dead without Lily's sacrifice, and Hermione is not only the best student at Hogwarts and saves everyone on numerous occasions, but most of the time they would never advance the plot without her.

I agree there are some paper thin characters in the book, but they're by no means all female.

I go with the "Lily was talented at potions, and if anything helped Snape" option, by the way.

At the end of the book, Ginny has another year of school to complete, and I'm betting Harry, Ron and Hermione went back for their 7th year too.

Now, if Harry followed his ambition to be an Auror, he'll have an additional 3 years of schooling to complete. I'm betting that he and Ginny weren't married until after Harry has a job.

So if we figure 4-5 years to finish school, and they get married then, it's only 2 more years until little James comes along.

Not all that unreasonable to me.

I can't criticise the writing and plotting, not having experienced them first hand; I can read the discussion of the fannish and note the ways in which this series of books has woven itself into the culture in the past ten years. In order to make sense of that, I spend a certain amount of time on Wikipedia, as well as questioning my daughter on story details.

Just so you know I'm reading and ethnologizing.

I didn't like that one at all.

FYI, the books were children's books

The reason I started reading them was because a number of adults were going ga-ga over them. Usually, the response to a complaint of some hole in a movie was something like "Oh, it's explained so much more in the books".

Yeah, it's explained more. But all the explanations don't change the deus ex machina into something that isn't.

But I didn't figure that out until this morning.

Now, what I've heard since is that the first couple of books are children's books and the later books become more adult.

Julia@146: Also, not knowing what your strengths are going in? They call it "life" who do speak of it.

Since this isn't a repeat, I'll answer. "Not knowing your strengths" is more than slightly different than "not knowing you have a magic car, magic phoenix, and magic plus-d-six-to-nagas sword" on wish-standby.

And the really simple question that shows how different they are is this: "Would the level of concern you had for Harry as he was going into the spider's den been the same had you known the Weasley twins were on standby in the magic flying car?"

If not, then the two are not comparable.

Would your level of concern for Harry as he was going into the Chamber of Secrets been the same if he had the magic sword in his hand and Fawkes up at the entrance waiting for his call?

If you would have had the same level of concern, then fine, we disagree. If you wouldn't have had the same level of concern, then that's all I'm trying to say here.

So, would you say you would have felt the same level of concern with the sword and Fawkes directly present? Or would you feel more concern with the sword and Fawkes hidden by the author so that you didn't know they were available?

I was asking a question to try and better understand what you think of the story. It really does have a yes or no answer. Because the story could have been written the way it was, or the way the question was asked. And both versions would have produced a reaction in you.

Would they have been the same reaction or a different reaction, is something only you can answer. I don't know, that's why I was asking you.

You can say you disagree with me, but don't say I've "given up on dialogue" and then not answer a fair question from me.

Fine, you don't need to belabor the point -- is there some reason why you're seeking to spoil this thread for the rest of us who wish to discuss them?

Specific example (quoted from that post):
But Harry Potter isn't the real world. It is, basically, a game, a set of rules that explain how the board (Harry's world) and the pieces (the characters) can move and interact. And Rowling is telling us the rules as we go along, rather than up front. So every time Harry is in a pinch, because the rules, board, pieces, all seem to look like Harry's dead meat, she'll say something like "Oh, I forgot to mention, that car way over here on the other side fo the board, that car can now show up and rescue Harry". Or Fawkes, or the mirror, or whatever.
That passage assumes — in fact, demands — that the only valid reference frame for storytelling is the reader's. Stanley bloody Fish couldn't have said it more directly. (Actually, Stanley bloody Fish can't say what he means directly at all, but that's another issue.)

In short, post 115 misses my point entirely, and would have earned a T on an OWL.

In all seriousness, anyone who doesn't want a conversation to continue should not continue it.
-----
* for values of sex that include how much they dislike/haven't read Harry Potter, beyond an initial position statement†

† full disclosure: I alighted from this train at Phoenix. But that's not a sign of my moral probity or anything. And I like the early volumes enough to own them in three languages†.

‡ Spanish and Dutch, if it's of interest. YA novels are good if you're just learning a language. I should get the Latin too, shouldn't I?

I'd have liked to see a bit more about Hagrid. During my traditional rereading of the preceding books, it occurred to me that Hagrid was, in many ways, the most loving of all the characters in a series of books where the big difference between hero and villain was the ability to love. That is, while Hagrid had definite likes and dislikes of various characters, it was the individuals he was reacting to. He was always, however, ready to look at other creatures as not automatically something to be loathed because they were giant spiders, thestrels, dragons, giant, or what have you. He wasn't always wise, but without Hagrid, The Good Guys would have missed out on a lot of help.

I also found it intriguing that this volume was the only one that opened with a couple of quotes. Being American, I'm not familiar with Aeschelus(sp?) other than general name recognition, but I'm a bit more familiar with Friend Penn. And both were talking about how death isn't the end of the world, something Voldemort was completely unwilling to see or accept.

Oh, yeah - Go Neville - I noticed both he and Harry performed better at things they "weren't good at" when they weren't under pressure from others to do the expected and fail.

And the car was not manned by Weasleys. It had earlier escaped on its own into the woods and emerged, nearly feral, to rescue the boys. I didn't see it as a cheat or deus ex machina at all, more like "oh, that's where it went."

When it comes to increasing peril through withholding facts, I think there's a degree where some is acceptable as long as it doesn't invoke the "oh, come on" response. Your level may be much lower than mine...

One of the Horcruxes will be in the "storage" version of the Room of Requirement.

Harry is one of the Horcruxes.

And if Snape's good, Snape's dead by the end of the book.

I had not realized how restricted Snape's agenda actually was, that it would boil down to the fact that he was in love with Lily. I thought he was playing both ends against the middle. I was pleased that wasn't his motivation.

So I got to pat myself on the back for the things I got right and I enjoyed the book immensely!

If you put Harry and Snape side by side and examine their childhoods, I think Snape has the worse life. I also find it interesting that while Harry gets his rainbow, Snape has never had anything in his life but pain and sacrifice. And pretty much all because he was in Slytherin.

It reminded me a of a line in the Sluggy Freelance parody of the original Harry Potter:

"[Slytherin] is the house for bad guys. Reward them amiably? Treat them with respect? They may become good, and then our paperwork would be all screwed up."

I don't think that Dumbledore meant Slytherin to be what it was, or purposely allowed it to be the house that encouraged evil. But the point isn't what he meant. The point is that Slytherin did become a house that made you evil, or at least pulled you towards selfishness, bigotry, and pride.

Snape obviously had a decent level of tolerance for muggle-born before he entered Slytherin. Five years later, he's yelling out slurs on the playground. That says something very important about the harm that sorting does, and about Slytherin-as-it-was-then. I don't believe it was the fault of anyone there specifically... but at that time it seems nearly impossible that you could go to Slytherin and come out untainted. That still seemed true in Potter's era: not one Slytherin managed to overcome the house's opression and act on their own. Hell, it looks like only a small minority escape with anything like honor or compassion in tact. Phineas, Slugworth, and Snape being the only examples ever presented us.

House cultures are oppressive, and the segregation of students is brutal. It seems that breaking the rules is the only way to have a serious connection with the other houses. (The DA, secret late-night snogging, etc.) If not for the DA, could they have come to know Luna so well, and gained her help? She's the only non-Gryffindor anywhere near the real action, and for obvious reasons.

Look at Luna's room, and you'll see the power of friends. Now imagine that she'd been a Slytherin, and the people who had been kind to her, kept her company, and shown her respect had been other Slytherins. She could have wandered, just as hungrily, toward the dark. when people are kind to you, you tend to think that they are right. When they are cruel to you, you tend to think that they are wrong.

If he hadn't been sorted into Slytherin, I strongly believe Snape wouldn't have been a death-eater, and would have remained with Lily. Whether they would have been romantically involved, who can say? But imagine, just for a moment, that Snape had been in Ravenclaw. I don't remember the numbers, but I know that nearly every wizard who ever went over to Voldemort was from Slytherin. Not only that, but nearly everyone in Slytherin from that era competent enough to become a death eater became one. Did Snape make the decisions he made himself? Sure he did. But Lucius freaking MALFOY was his prefect, the person who was supposed to show him how to act and what to be, the person his teachers would tell him to look to and ask questions of. He made the first choices when he was twelve and thirteen and fourteen, trying to emulate the upperclassmen he idolized, and trying to fit in with his fellow house students. I can still remember being a relatively outcast 14-year-old, and finding somewhere where I could finally fit in, be liked, and be important. And I hated bullies and fashion zombies as much as Snape hated the Gryffindors.

It reminds me of a T-shirt I'm seeing around lately. On it is written: "I wish I could hate you to death." Kids who are victims of bullying usually wish they could cause pain they feel to be returned to their tormentor. The difference being, if you're a wizard, you actually CAN hate someone to death. Other than Lily, the only people who ever showed Severus an ounce of respect or friendship were Slytherins. And in that era Slytherin basically meant 'wannabe death eater.' This is why it's important to show kindness and compassion to the 'bad guys." Because a lot of people are on the wrong side because their friends are on that side.

In a lot of ways, Kreacher demonstrates this most aptly. He is an 'evil' house elf because he has only ever been treated kindly by evil people. As soon as the good people start treating him nicely, he becomes as faithful to them as he previously was to the evil ones.

Ask 11 year old Snape if he wants to rule over the mudbloods... he'd probably say no. Ask him if he wants to be powerful, to be popular, to get revenge on those who have hurt him, he'd say Yes. Harry would have too. The difference... the main difference in their destinies, was that Harry had seen the hate and evil of Slytherin house, whereas to Snape Gryffindor were the bullies. To base the influences that will shape you in the next seven years entirely on less than a minute of thought while you're eleven is just... insane.

Snape was basically doomed by his sorting. I don't mean to say he didn't make conscious decisions after he was in Slytherin. I don't mean to absolve him from all the wrongdoing he did when he was working with the Dark Arts. I think Snape and Harry were very similar people when they entered Hogwarts. The difference was that Harry grew up surrounded by the teamwork and bravery that were Gryffindor, whereas Snape grew up surrounded by the pride and wrath that were Slytherin.

It all comes back to that line:

"You know, sometimes I think we Sort too soon..."

Yes, in there is a recognition of Snape's bravery, and an acknowledgment of Dumbledore's deviousness. But there's also, in my eyes, a quiet, unspoken apology. "I'm sorry the Sorting ruined your life. I'm fairly sure that it did. The fact that it did may have saved the world; otherwise we would not have a spy in the Death Eaters. But... in the end... there is nothing I can give you to make up for it."

Snape was able to look at the one true case of love and friendship he had experienced in his life, and use that to pull himself up and atone. If he’d been in a place where he could have been exposed to more love and friendship, he might not have fallen in the first place.

Love saves you.

-----
* Harry, not Anakin. Anakin got Yoda's feedback instead, and look how well that turned out.

(I have Winnie Ille Pu too...I love how Pu's songs all rhyme.)

I'm really, really loving what JKR did with Snape and the entire 'lost boys' theme, now that I can see it all at once.

I guess that's what it comes down to. I just need to keep that in mind when all my friends are raving about some book. Thanks for answering the question though.

Leah@168: House cultures are oppressive, and the segregation of students is brutal.

In the very first book, the very first scene on Hogwarts ground, is the sorting hat, and it made my "collective punishment" alarms scream like all get out. I kept waiting for Rowling to soften the blow, but nope, it's just brutal institutional processing. Dumbledore tells Harry that it's what you choose that makes the difference, but, wow, once you're put in a house, your goose is pretty much cooked on certain choices.

seems that way.

but remember, the hat takes your wishes into account, too.

Re: houses. Since HP was also a satire on British boarding schools, the casual cruelties and competitions were pretty much required. However, several people act in ways their Houses were not known for, especially in the last book.

So, the Sorting Hat is the Eleven-Plus exam.

Of course.

That said, I think Snape was the tragic hero in all this, and I agree he's what Harry might have become had Harry not had the support he'd had. And vice versa.

Even near the end, Snape rips apart a photo of Harry, James and Lily - and keeps the section with her. He does not, and never will, value Harry, or consider him to have any redeeming qualities. I'll bet Snape seethed when Slughorn praised Harry's ability in his Potion classes.

The one thing Snape didn't have was an open mind. Maybe that's why he was so good at Occlumency.

In Order of the Phoenix, it was Harry's emotions, his loving thoughts of joining Sirius and his parents that drove Voldy out, not any strength of mind.

Hmm, maybe Harry's an empath -- it's Voldemort's anger that links Harry to what is going on in Voldy's part of the world. Not mind-reading, but emotion-sensing.

What aspect of the whole series do you like the most?

I don't get the feeling that Snape never valued Harry at all. Rather, I get the feeling that it was constantly a battle inside him, where his words expressed the worst part of him and his actions expressed the better part. I will admit that Snape likely didn't see Harry as his own person, but rather as a manifestation of two other people. (Which essentially seems to be how most adults view young children.)

I don't think you can use Snape tearing that picture as a demonstration of how Snape views Harry. That picture was, to Snape, the future he had lost. Looking at it would have been like looking at your true love's wedding photos. But just to see her face... happy... might have given him a last bit of strength he needed to carry on, reminded him of what he was doing and why he was doing it. To keep the whole picture with him would have been torture (and if you think Snape needs more personal torture, I'm not sure what to say to you). To keep only her... might have helped.

And yes, the Harry Potter books are simply full of adults who should just grow the hell up and let bygones be bygones. But even real adults don't always do that. I am always that person in the world of interpersonal conflict: the person who wants all her friends to be friends, and everyone to be mature and turn the other cheek. Only within the past two years or so have I come to admit that most adults don't actually act that way. Snape's actions towards Harry were partially resentment and loss, partially reverence for Lily, and partially (I think) a cover. If he had been kind and nurturing to Harry Potter then he wouldn't have been able to do his much more important job of seemingly joining Voldemort in working towards Harry's destruction.

No, Muriel calls her Ginevra during the wedding.

While he 'favors' the Slytherin students, his behaviour to the class as a whole comes across as more like a 'drill sergeant' than a teacher. In some respects, Snape and Umbridge are reflections of one another.

No, we have Kreacher's evidence that the potion in the basin, while agonizing to drink and inducing a raging thirst, doesn't kill of itself. It's drinking the lake water afterwards, which triggers the Inferi, that's supposed to kill. And of course it's about as reliable as those Bond-villain multi-step death-traps always are.

At one point I was an avid writer of Snape fanfic. You are saying, in essay form, EVERYTHING I tried to put into my narrative. (I put the first instance of bullying by the Marauders on the initial ride on the Hogwarts Express. And a friend said that my description of Snape trying to find a seat on the train made her teeth hurt -- and I took it from my own daily struggles to find a seat on the school bus.)

I didn't predict the Snape/Lily connection (I am, after all, a slasher) but what you said, what was so clearly shown, about love and acceptance and overwhelming motives?

YES.

I know, I know, sometimes a locomotive is just a locomotive.

And, of course, I love Arthur Weasley, the enthusiast. The geek, in fact - one of us, but on the "other side."

I've always admired how Rowling can make important plot points hinge on tiny details from way way back. Harry is the master of the Elder Wand because he Expelliarmused Draco. He avoids having to show Scrimgeour the message on the Snitch because he originally caught it in his mouth. Sirius Black escapes Azkaban because of a photo of the Weasleys in the newspaper. The answer to a riddle posed in book 6 and solved in book 7 is a character mentioned in passing in book 5. Harry is told in book 1 of the dangers he would face if he took it into his head to rob Gringotts, and that's exactly what he does six years later. The means of Pettigrew's death is planted, with no explanation, three books before it is used. And of course, "The wand chooses the wizard."

History of magic - a dull ghost who puts everyone to sleep

Divination - Trelawney can't actually do any controlled divination herself. She's in the position for protection, not because she's qualified to teach.

Care of Magical Creatures - Hagrid is sweet, but most of the students are more terrified than educated.

Potions - Snape seems more interested in insulting students than teaching. You'll get assigned an essay if you mess up your potion, but no assistance in the potion making itself. He's there because Dumbledore needs to control him, not because he can teach.

Defense Against Dark Arts - the instructors are widely variable. Lockhart and Umbredge are worse than useless, and Snape does no better teaching this than he does potions. I can't remember offhand how well Quirrel taught. But there were no more than three good years out of the six that the trio were in school.

The only topics consistently well taught seem to be Transfiguration, Charms and Herbology. It isn't clear how good the Astronomy professor is, or the instructors for Hermione's extra classes.

There also isn't any integration of Muggle knowledge into the curriculum. It might be useful, for example, to incorporate botany and biology into herbology, or Muggle history with the history of Magic, etc. Some math and business classes might be useful, particularly since if you don't work for the Ministry, you're likely to be running a small business. Also languages - the students who visit for the Triwizard competition know English, while none of the Hogwort's students know their languages.

Muggle history strikes me as particularly needed - the fact that no one in the Order saw the commonalities between Fascist/Nazi methods and what the ministry was doing is pitiful, and being able to make that connection might have helped them convince others to join them.

There also aren't any Wizard primary schools, and I can't imagine that it's safe to let a 6 year old wizard who can't control her magic loose in Muggle school. The general ignorance of Muggle cultures suggests that few families send their children to Muggle schools, which would bring the whole family in contact with Muggles regularly for several years. Harry and Hermione are probably better educated, in many ways, than kids who grew up in wizard families. The Malfoys could probably afford tutors for Draco, but where would someone like Crabbe or Goyle pick up the basics?

Hogworts' program, and wizard education in general, is poor. And it's a systematic problem, which seems to be closely linked to wizard culture, with its isolation and secrecy, and the way that control over the school is a political fight between the school administration and the Ministry.

The answer to a riddle posed in book 6 and solved in book 7 is a character mentioned in passing in book 5.

I'm sure I'm going to feel stupid when you tell me, but what are you referring to here?

For example:
I love the way Dudley turned out to be the key to the whole thing, as the final Horcrux. But three whole chapters of Harry's anguish over finding so much pleasure in having to kill him was a bit much, I thought.

And:
I can't believe that Dumbledore was a Death Eater all along! He was just pretending to help Harry, while all the time secretly hindering him, and crippling his efforts. Wow!

Duh! Thank you. I plead up-too-late-reading.

Yes, but then I realized it would spoil the pleasure for people who would then be reading the book wondering "were they lying? if so then that DIDN'T happen, right?"

He does not, and never will, value Harry, or consider him to have any redeeming qualities.

Rather, that Harry is a living symbol that Lily chose James Potter and had a child with him--not with Snape, who foolishly chose the Death Eaters and lost Lily because of it. (Though I wish Rowling had explained more why Lily married James.)

Rowling is simply writing for her demographic: kids in school. How many famously popular children's stories involve a school where the classes are generally helpful, informative, useful, and the teachers are generally intelligent, understanding, and fair?

When Draco is asked to ID Harry, Hermione & Ron, he claims he's not sure. Is he really not sure, or is that as close as he can get to saying it's not them to allow them to escape?

True.

My point was more that it goes well beyond merely reflecting the problems of the current UK system (both the high stakes testing and the boarding school culture) that others have mentioned. Getting rid of Voldemort is only half the problem - a government where that sort of megalomaniac can't take control twice in half a century is needed.

It would be interesting to see a well written adult (in the non-pornographic sense) fanfic with various characters working for political and educational reform in the post-Voldemort world.

When she began orchestrating the defense of Hogwarts, McGonagall made clear to Slugworth(?) that they would be dueling to the death - and so, I'm assuming, would use the unforgivable curses. (Maybe they're unforgivable because killing people is all they're for - and killing someone who's not trying to kill you is what's unforgivable?)

The other characters may have been thinking along the same lines - Lupin is angry with Harry for just trying to disarm Stan Shunpike because that's his signature move, but also because the other side is trying to kill them.

Also, yay Neville! He had quite the character arc, and it's unfortunate that most of it was off-screen.

Also, it might've been hard to watch her smiling at her baby knowing that said child had been raised for the slaughter. Snape must have liked to imagine how Lily would have praised/thanked him for helping Harry survive over the years.

I'd always thought that Snape had had a full turning point when he betrayed Voldemort the first time (I was leaning towards "disgusted by the killings" instead of "in love with Lily"). Now I wonder if he didn't complete his change until after Voldemort's return. Did he fully grasp the difference between "arrogant toerag" and "evil" that Lily explained to him, and, if so, when? I could see him not thinking too much about it during the intervening years.

Ah yes, but then we wouldn't have 100 pages of thrilling camping-related action. (rimshot)
In fairness, many of the developments in the book take place offscreen, due to Rowling's glue-like adherence to Harry's POV. The bit where McGonagall (I think?) tells Harry to stop watching and start "looking for something" took this to the logical endpoint. Harry can't leave too soon, or the reader won't get to know what's going on.

I suppose it's Rowling's style, like it or not. It's easy to imagine a version of this story where our view of events isn't quite so claustrophobic, where we can follow the politics, see Lupin and Tonks go down fighting, have Snape at least get to say a few more words once his mission is finished (or hey, even appear in the resurrection stone scene), and where a visit to the Chamber of flippin' secrets isn't just a throwaway reference, but that's not how J.K.R. rolls. And in the end it is Harry's story, after all.

And was I the only one who read Harry's walk in the woods and thought of Aslan in TLTW&TW?

With the kids who started out on Sorcerer's Stone now going off to college, that might be feasible. Rowling wrote a world with a child's view of morality (i.e. good and bad), and now that the readers have grown up, maybe the fictional world can too.

As for the discussion about Snape, it's another child's point of view of morality. You're either good or bad. Harry didn't like Snape, even after it was confirmed by Voldemort himself in the Sorcerer's Stone that Snape had saved his life. The idea of redemption and/or forgiveness is an adult concept. Harry has little knack for it. I'm not sure if Rowling has a knack for it or not. But trying to determine where Snape was on the moral meter is impossible, because in Harry Potter's world, the meter is a binary "good" and "bad".

The only "gray" about morality in the HP world is that some people are actually good, but a lot of poeple (not Harry, because Harry "knows") think the person is "bad". All the people who thought Hagrid was behind the Chamber of Secrets, when he wasn't. All the people who thought Sirius Black was a bad man, when he really wasn't. All the people who thought Voldemort had not returned, when he had. And finally, all the people who thought Snape was a double agent, when he wasn't.

The reality is that we all can and do things in a very grey region of the morality scale. Some of them we fix. Some of them we don't. We are little different from Snape, except that our circumstances kept certain decisions from presenting to us. It's just that when presented with Snape, we want to know if he is good or bad, and the reality is that he's pretty much just like us, he's human, and the problem is we don't know what to do with humans, we just know what to do with good people and bad people.

What impresses me most is that fact that as the characters in the book matured, so did the story and the writing. The first book is clearly written for younger children, and the reading levels progress as the series progresses, until you reach the final books which are written for teenagers/young adults.

As children continue to read the story, the level at which they must read increases. And the complexity of the story and the relationships increase. Things are much more black and white in the early books, but as the characters mature, they discover that the world holds much more gray, and that what they believe to be good and evil are not necessarily as clear cut as they thought. (Which is just another way of saying what everyone else has been saying, which is that I love how Snape was not that evil character everyone believed, but was instead a complex character who, even when doing what was right, didn't always do good.)

I find that steadily increasing level of complexity completely amazing.

As my mom (the elementary school teacher) said, that's something she's never seen a children's book author do before.

Ever.

And she spent years on the West Virginia Children's Book Award committee.

www.themedicinewheel.net

That LJ mentioned in comment 5 has been suspended. Are there any caches anywhere?

I'm okay with the epilogue. It added a nice touch of "Well, I'm home."

On another point, one should also note that one of the reasons people like Hagrid is that he's the only character coded as proletarian. Very important in England.

One thing nagging at me; how did Arthur Riddle get himself raised to the peerage as Lord Voldemort? Strictly speaking, I suppose,Arthur Riddle, Lord Voldemort. It's definitely not done in England to invent your own distinctions. Is he a life peer? Though I suppose if you intended to live for ever the issue would be moot. The world of magic appears to have a college of heralds, but what about baronets?

I think I'm going to be most disappointed if that is not the case.

And @ Russ, #127, actually it reminded me of the beginning of Matrix Revolutions, the platform scene.

There have been many attempts to work out a British wizarding population sufficiently large enough to maintain a Quidditch league and all the other jobs mentioned, yet small enough for one graduating glass a year. It can't be done - the general explanation given is that JK Rowling isn't great at maths. As a rule the wizarding population size is whatever you need it to be for your essay or fanfic, supported by whichever facts and handwaving work for you.

As to "Lord" Voldemort (formerly Tom Marvolo Riddle)--he started calling himself that, very quietly, while still at Hogwarts. In no way was he elevated to a title, and I honestly don't think such things are mentioned as being used in the wizarding world. If they were, then both the Weasleys and the Malfoys, as two of the oldest pureblood families (again, if I remember my reading), would likely have had titles attached to them--and if Draco's dad had been "Lucius, Lord Malfoy" there's no way Draco wouldn't have mentioned it! (Stuck-up little pig...)

Ross @ 211: I'm not disagreeing with you, I just wonder how you arrived at this.

Given that the wizarding population works out, at most, in the tens of thousands, and that the Ministry covers multiple floors, I think that the wizards suffer from the most insane example of over-governance in the world. Cato Institute for reforming the Ministry of Magic!

Also, I'm pretty sure the Ministry of Magic uses highly, highly irregular internal naming; ministries don't contain departments, any more than cats contain dogs. (Also, ministries are incapable of independent action, at least as I was taught it. They may only advise the Minister, who then takes action.)

I don't really care; J K Rowling isn't an expert on governance and the British Civil Service, but it does annoy me that she is claimed to be good at world building; she isn't. She just makes sure you don't care about the ridiculously bloated government, the cruelty and illegality of the whole set up, etc, etc, by keeping your eyes off those parts.

OK...two things occur to me after reading this. First, who says that's all they do? One scene at the train? Secondly, it's that the phrase seems so dismissive of what it takes to be a good mother to several children.

Rowling chose a POV that is solely Harry's. So what? It has strengths and weaknesses, dependent largely on what you want out of the book.

Greg criticizes the books as having a purely black/white viewpoint because of it being a child's view, including this:

The idea of redemption and/or forgiveness is an adult concept. Harry has little knack for it. I'm not sure if Rowling has a knack for it or not.

But in the epilogue Rowling shows that the adult Harry has most certainly learned that lesson if his son's name shows anything.

I'm pretty sure the password to Dumbledore's office was (at least once, and I think it was Minerva using it) lemondrop(s?).

Oh well, at least one of my other pet theories was right -- the Snape-Lily connection ;)

mythago@208: I also wanted more exploration of what finally attracted Lily to James. I liked Rowling's twist that James was an arrogant kid who had much to learn. But we never did get to see how he shrunk his ego enough to redeem himself in Lily's eyes.

To those asking Greg to stop talking--in my experience, discussions benefit from dissenting views. And Greg was never less than polite in arguing his.

Anamika #224: To the best of my knowledge, mightygodking's only supposed "TOS violation" was posting his Harry Potter review again, after the book's release, when he'd been given a cease-and-desist for posting it prior to the book's release. Pretty poor practice on the part of LJ.

Anyone who's interested in a copy of mightygodking's review, please email me, and I'll be glad to send it to you. Well worth the read, IMHO--a bit gratuitously snarky in parts, but very funny.

More likely, we have not seen classes in any number of mundane subjects that would be dull for Rowling to write about and equally dull for us to read about. Hermione's breadth of knowledge, to some degree, suggests that she's been paying attention in some of these classes.

Of course, it could be argued that this is a pretty extreme time for Hogwarts, or that most skills are passed down in family/on-the-job/whatever, and Hogwarts plays a part more akin to Oxbridge, as a social networking environment. (Or, even better, you know Unseen University? They've started satellite campuses. Hogwarts has got the big meals, disregard for students, and odd architecture down, but not yet the memos in place of curses memo.)

But after all, school in a full blown post-scarcity society? They have cornucopia machines. 2 + 2 doesn't have to equal 4.

One thing I wonder about the Hogwarts curriculum is enchanting objects. Hermione is able to do very advanced object enchantments by her fifth year; Fred and George Weasley do quite a bit; Harry's father and friends were able to make the Marauders' Map. But if anyone in Harry's first six years ever tells Harry the first thing about how to do it, I can't recall it.

individualfrog@111: Very nice! Your analysis is convincing, and I'm pretty sure that Rowling intended the parallels -- Eleanor@202 gives several examples of things that were planned out in advance. My own favorite example there is the mention of Sirius Black in chapter 1 of book 1.

abi@160: Did you know that book one has been put into ancient Greek? (Attic dialect, not modern.) ἉΡΕΙΟΣ ΠΟΤΗΡ καὶ ἡ τοῦ φιλοσόφου λίθος.

Similarly, Laurie Faria Stolarz's YA series set at a boarding school -- I think it starts with Blue Is For Nightmares? -- is a version of boarding school which seems to be based not on classic boarding school novels, but on some weird admixture of college and public high school. I'm not sure how else to explain it.

I love reading boarding school novels -- yes, even as an adult, and yes, even while I was *at* boarding school -- but very few of the modern American ones bear much resemblance to any of the schools I attended or visited. I'm guessing the British books are similarly different from the actual schools.

There are a couple of recent American novels that were pretty close to my experience of boarding schools -- John Greene's Looking for Alaska and Daniel Parker's Wessex Papers trilogy. (Daniel Parker is a pseud., but the real author of the Wessex Papers and John Greene both went to boarding schools in the US.)

Did Hermione get SPEW off the ground? Did Ginny get to play Quidditch professionally, or did she go on to help George out at WWW? What did Hermione and Ginny go on to do? Seven years before having kids -- even if you assume that they immediately became SAHM after the children came, that's a long time. (For that matter, did Harry and Ron become Aurors, or decide to go for something quieter?)

I can guess at why JKR did it -- she did it because Harry has always been looking for a family, and she's ending the series with resolution in Harry's POV. Ending it with happy families is natural. It's just that what interests Harry isn't what interests me.

Secondly, it's that the phrase seems so dismissive of what it takes to be a good mother to several children.

That's your interpretation, not my position.

Re: 233: That was one of my pet theories, too.

Harry Potter, Heinlein-style

Harry Potter, Heinlein-style

And found it answered all the most pressing questions - who lives, who dies - without addressing any of the most tantalising ones set up by the end of Half Blood Prince. Well, apart from 'Snape. Good or bad?' and the sub-text to that answer was pretty much 'okay, and now you can go back and start reading from the beginning to find out how.'

Maybe that why the final chapter's there. To deal with the likes of me.

Oh and yes, three resounding cheers for Neville!

Jim@231: But in the epilogue Rowling shows that the adult Harry has most certainly learned that lesson if his son's name shows anything.

That might only mean that Harry now sees Snape as "good", which could be just more of the black/white view. Forgiving someone after they're dead isn't quite the same as telling them face to face that you love them and that you'll never hold their past against them.

I'm not saying she doesn't understand the difference, I'm just saying I think there's a couple of different ways to read some of those things.

I think it would have been more definitive if Snape had lived, and Harry kept some kind of friendly relationship with him. But in popular fiction, characters who fall far into the dark usually have to die in the end, no matter how close they come back to the light. Maybe that's because the general population isn't so forgiving.

Making the prose style of a series "grow up" along with the main characters and (presumably) the reader is a fairly common technique.

Laura Ingalls Wilder does it with the "Little House" books. Maude Heart Lovelace does it with the "Betsy- Tacy" series. If I remember correctly, Sydney Taylor does it with the "All of a Kind Family" series.

"The epilogue felt like the easy way out. Not a cheat, exactly -- but there were definitely other ways she could have tied up the series that might have let Ginny and Hermione be something more than wives and mothers."

Count me in with the bunch glad to see Neville step up (and sorry not to see more of that), and also glad to see Luna portrayed as perhaps not as nuts as she had been previously (though we had seen hints that she's not quite as nutty as her dad). But her performance at the finale of the book, providing the diversion Harry needed to slip away, had me practically giving her a standing ovation (okay, in my seat :-). I'm a bit sorry we didn't see what happens to her (married to Neville? Publisher of the Quibbler, research wizard, Auror, or Minister of Magic?).

One thing I'm curious about (but haven't gone to look for) is that, before the book was released, one common prediction was for one of the Weasley twins to buy the farm, along with a reaction along the lines of "but that wouldn't be FAIR!" Now that it's come true, I think I've seen one person espousing that sentiment. (I agree, and also understand that Fred's death is more realistic than otherwise, given how many people died and that he was on the front lines.) Has this reaction been suppressed in fandom because of the acknowledgment of that realism, or have I just missed it?

In book 7, though, the headmaster's office belongs to Snape. When the kids go up there to use the Penseive, Harry shouts "Dumbledore" out of frustration, and the door opens, which I interpreted to mean that that was Snape's password to the office. It just touched me--Dumbledore always had a goofy candy-related password, but Snape doesn't joke around.

At least with regard to anyone but the Dursleys. Even with Petunia's backstory provided to him in Snape's memories, and even with Dudley's shaking his hand in the beginning of the book, Harry never once examines the Dursley's in any light other than the terrible way they treated him. They are pretty much beyond redemption for it, and I don't begrudge Harry that.

The black/white morality of the HP world started to shake up toward the end of Book 4, which is probably why Harry was such a whinging git through all of Book 5: his worldview had taken a tumble and he had to bother himself with looking at things differently, seeing more than it was easy to see.

I find it interesting that Book 6 was all about understanding how Voldemort became what he did--understanding evil, in essence, and even empathising as Harry saw parallels in his own life. But the hardest journey for Harry, Book 7, was having to understand that good comes with its own complexity as well and isn't pure and doesn't exist as its own grand thing the way he had thought.

I think that Harry not being willing to re-examine the Dursley's is about as emotionally convincing as anything I've hears about the series. People who abuse us as children, when we are defenseless and entirely at their mercy, are, in fact, pretty much the hardest to forgive. (I'm still working on one family of old neighbors).

Do you mean to say that a world that's not a Utopia is a poorly built world? How do you get the idea that JKR means to distract readers from the cruelty, injustice etc? What makes you think that Rowling disagrees with your opinion of the Ministry?

"Also, I'm pretty sure the Ministry of Magic uses highly, highly irregular internal naming; ministries don't contain departments, any more than cats contain dogs."

That they don't do so in the present-day real-world British government doesn't mean that they principally can't, ever. And keep in mind that the equivalent of the entire real-world British government is called "The Ministry", so some other name was needed for the equivalent of
individual real-world British Ministries.

"(Also, ministries are incapable of independent action, at least as I was taught it. They may only advise the Minister, who then takes action.)"

In theory, you might be right.

"Given that the wizarding population works out, at most, in the tens of thousands, and that the Ministry covers multiple floors, I think that the wizards suffer from the most insane example of over-governance in the world."

What do you think you would get if you would put all goverment/state/public institution offices in an average British town of that size, except for the local schools, prison and hospitals, into one building? Not counting the Atrium, the Ministry seems to have eight floors. If we assume that there are fifty people working on each floor, that's a total of 400, wich, if we assume a total population of 10000 people, means about 4 percent government, police, military and administration employees in the population. Perhaps that's too much, but I'm not sure that it's unusually high.

I think this is one of the strengths of the book. Rowling is deliberately creating institutions that, while populated mainly by "good guys", are demonstrably imperfect to begin with, and capable of becoming much more so under stress.

Kind of like the real world.

Just for a reference point, I lived in a small city of 25000 people, which had fewer than 250 city employees.

I've been trying to remember whether Harry ever mentions the Dursleys again in Book 7. I have some niggling memory of him comparing their treatment of him to Sirius's treatment of Kreacher, but I can't seem to find it. Anyone else remember something like this?

Ooh, I hadn't made that connection. Heh. Good to know that my math wasn't off— and also that the Down With Immoral Harry Potter crowd hasn't picked that up as another instance of the horrible practices of the books.

There is actually an Amazon comment that goes off about the sex, violence, nudity, and bad language. In those terms. Um... nudity? Well, Harry's doubles change in front of him, and he takes off his clothes to go diving for the sword, but still, nudity? Do people really have that little sense of proportion?

But either way you slice it, it's still a helluva name to give a kid, as has been said above. I can just imagine the conversation a seventh-year Albus might have with his father about it.

Oh yes, if the door opens, that's the password alright; how like Snape. He's really one of my favourite characters. I haven't read seven yet (and yet! I do not fear spoilers!) and I'm looking forward to seeing more of his motivations.

You're mean.

;)

Worse than that. It's being named after Albus Dumbledore and Severus Snape AND being Harry Potter's son.

(With respect to 274, Note that in the epilogue Harry calls Snape "probably the bravest man I ever knew")

I wasn't entirely convinced by the line about sorting too soon. If the process was as simplistic as that implies, I'd expect Hermione "smartest witch in her generation" Granger to be in Ravenclaw, Neville in Hufflepuff and young Dumbledore either in Ravenclaw or Slytherin. Yet somehow the Hat saw that they'd fit in Gryffindor.

Kellie @279: I meant that being named after Albus Dumbledore and Severus Snape is a lot to hang on a kid.

People keep saying that, but this is Harry Potter's kid. I don't know if there would be a noticeable difference if he'd been named Billy Bob.

You know what I'd have liked in the epilogue? If some of the kids were really excited about being in Slytherin like Snape and the other great Slytherins that helped rebuild Hogwarts in the years after the battle. As it is, nothing really has changed.

In a word, characters. By that I don't mean that the characters there are particularly complex or intriguing. Frankly, I think character complexity is a bit overrated in literature anyway- I think that there are a lot of people in the real world who, if they were fictional characters, would get their creators accused of writing them two-, one-, or zero-dimensionally. (And I don't think that this means that there's something wrong with those people.) So books with some more and some less complex characters ring more true to life for me than books where the author tried to make everyone internally complicated to the point of borderline MPD.

No, what I mean with liking the characters is that I can't think of any other work of fiction right now- and that includes a lot of stuff of wich I think that it is in many other respects much better than Harry Potter- in wich the characters seem so much "alive" to me, in wich I'm so much engaged by them- with "engaged by" meaning anything from loving or liking them to finding them interesting to being amused by them to being upset by them to more or less strongly disliking them.

Your mileage may vary; indeed, in your case, it most certainly does. But you weren't asking about why on Earth you should like the books, but about what aspect others like most about them.

That aspect is closely followed by the genre mixing/something for everyone aspect, and, in Order of the Phoenix, the "word duels" with various characters trying to out-snark each other.

(For the record, I think your Deus Ex Machina accusation holds true for the first five books (allthough I don't really mind it); in the sixth book, Harry doesn't get into any really hopeless situation to start with; and in the last book, the way he's saved can, IIRC, be concluded from information before the fact, allthough that might not be clear from a plot synopsis.)

P J Evans @265: Ok, point taken. However, how many of the usual government functions are performed by the city government, rather than other levels of government, for the inhabitants?

not necessarily the character you most liked, but the one that drew you into the story, which might be Snape, or even Voldemort. I seem to recall that when Star Wars Episode 4 first came out there was a bit of a Darth Vader subculture that came out afterwards, so, who knows.

So far, I'd say the one for me would be Hagrid.

This rigor makes him a harsh and intolerant teacher, but it also suggests why he supported Dumbledore and the "good guys."

His choice of wizardly expertise is Potions, or Alchemy. A profession attracting totally amoral charlatans, displayed by Slughorn's teaching the subject in Prince. (Various mishaps involving students' love potions appear in this volume, too.)

With this alchemy doubtless Snape could have made James admire him, and Lily love him; at some point, he chose not to. He threatens Harry with Veritaserum at one point in Goblet, but doesn't use it on him.

The more evil purposes of Potions are hinted at (Hermione, searching for information on the Horcruxes, reads about them but Rowling doesn't give details).

As for the General Theory of Magic, Rowling does address the problem briefly in Hallows, explaining why you can't just conjure food out of the air (when Harry, Ron, and Hermione are starving in the forest).

Although, of those, I suppose that only the goblins are likely to be much use as consumers, so I think that the world's economy does rather rely on wizards spending very highly on luxeries- oddly, since most basic items (certainly food, and almost certainly clothing) seemingly cannot be conjured into existance. (BTW- I loved getting more insight into goblin/wizard rivalry and history, would actually have liked more of that. I think the dynamic between their contrasting attitudes to ownership etc is interesting considering that the goblins have been put in charge of an institution designed to uphold ownership according to very "wizard-ish" rules.)

But it certainly seems possible to suppose that the human witches and wizards do not actually make up the majority of wizarding society (all of which must be kept secret from muggles), but that witches and wizards DO form the largest or most powerful group within that society, which is consequently managed largely for the convienience of this priviledged group.

Giants don't get to go to school, and half-giants are not treated well there. House elves have been systematically subjugated. Dementors act on wizard orders. Creatures like centaurs are mostly tolerated, provided they keep to themselves, but they aren't exactly invited to take part in governing.

Actually, the more I think about things, with Voldemort or without, this society was pretty unwell. Hmm

And was I the only one who read Harry's walk in the woods and thought of Aslan in TLTW&TW?

More Garden of Gethsemane for me, (in a forest and all. Noone could accuse Rowling of being subtle) but then, so did the Aslan scene, even when I first read it as a wee thing.

Mary 205:
Oh yes. I want a forum crawling bot that makes posts from place to place in the general form of:

OhmyGOD! X killed Y in manner Z on page ###.

Where X and Y are complementary lists of names, and Z is a list of setting appropriate manners of demise.

I was talking about this with a friend who was annoyed about Hermione sending her parents to Australia, which she interpreted as an arbitrary action she probably took without consulting them. It would be in keeping with the way she secretly cursed the sign-up sheet for Dumbledore's Army, and imprisoned and blackmailed Rita Skeeter. My friend had to re-read the passage to confirm that the book never mentioned anything about consent being given.

On the other hand, when I read that passage, all I got was that she was quite upset about having to do that, and it never occurred to me that she might not have at least explained matters to her parents first. (How much they would have understood is another question.)

If it were Willow doing something like that, we wouldn't have had to discuss it: Willow wouldn't bother consulting anyone.

I guess I don't think of forests when I think of Gethsemane, though of course, that's what both CSL and JKR are referring to.

I have to say, I too was momentarily misled by both Victoire (first thought: All right, JK!) and "her fluffy ginger cat, Crookshanks, at her feet, sorting books". I mean, that's not even an unlikely thing for a cat in the Harryverse to be doing, is it?

I guess I don't think of forests when I think of Gethsemane, though of course, that's what both CSL and JKR are referring to.

I have to say, I too was momentarily misled by both Victoire (first thought: All right, JK!) and "her fluffy ginger cat, Crookshanks, at her feet, sorting books". I mean, that's not even an unlikely thing for a cat in the Harryverse to be doing, is it?

I think that's what makes the name Albus Severus even more rough. I mean, if Lee Jordan or Cho Chang or one of the Patil twins or [insert name of minor character not all that caught up in events here] named a kid Albus Severus, that's not nearly the same kind of pressure as being Harry Potter's kid and bearing the names of the two men who helped Dad defeat Voldemort. If there was a way to give any of Harry's kids added pressure, that was it.

That he clearly resented Harry for being a symbol of what he'd lost and was forced to protect him could only have made it worse.

Yeah, Snape would probably be number 2 on my list, and it is because of Alan Rickman. The man is an awesome actor.

Another actor I am continually amazed by is Gary Oldman who played Sirius Black. That he was the same actor who played the man who would become Commissioner Gordon in "Batman Begins", and Jean-Baptiste Emanuel Zorg (the bad guy) in "Fifth Element" just blows my mind.

And is anyone else reminded of McKillip's Riddle of Stars?

Oh yes; the political turmoil, the war, and the reconstruction - bring it on! But then, I suppose, it wouldn't really be a children's book, would it? Could you write a dystopia for children?

Pat Greene, 292:

I'll second (third?) the squeeing over Alan Rickman; he was my pick for Snape as well, back when I was playing imaginary casting director.

Sharon McLeod, 272:

Agreed on the confusion over Victoire. I wonder whether that's more obvious to someone who knows French. Before I figured it out, I had a moment of "well, the wingnuts are already boycotting the books."

You're not alone.

Does anyone else feel that Rowling is particularly bad at showing people falling in love? I don't really get ANY of her couples. I know she thinks they're in love, and I'll believe that when she sees and feels their feelings she knows it, but she hasn't shown me any indication.

The only relationship in her stable that feels real to me is Lily and Snape. But at the same time she is adamant in telling (not showing) us that Lily and James were this marvelous, happy couple. It's a strange disconnect.

I sort of get Ron and Hermione, but I'd get it a lot more if there was more tenderness, even a little bit. Anyone else have opinions?

One thing I rather liked was the depiction of the Malfoys, and how Draco is their only child, despite all the "pureblood uber alles" business. One rather expects that Lucius hasn't been getting any for quite some time. Which actually explains Lucius as well.

I imagine the upcoming Malfoy divorce proceedings. It will probably become case history for Wizardry Law.

I'm also rather pleased to have called it wrong but also called it right on Narcissa Malfoy: Aside from expecting Snape and one of the Weasely Twins to bite it, I thought that Narcissa had the biggest Xs over her eyes since Rowling made a point volumes back that she was the reason Draco hadn't gone to Durmstrang, and moreover, for all the Death-Eatery of her husband and her sister, she was pretty much the ladies auxilary at best. I expected that Voldemort would notice that she wasn't really with the program and would kill her to make an example, giving Draco a reason to, if not befriend Harry and Neville, at least elbow them out of the way so he could take his own Potshots at Voldemort.

What I did not expect was that the Voldemort who had been so previously adept at reading people and manipulating them would have a complete brainfart where she was concerned and not realize that if it came to a choice between him and her son, she'd throw Voldemort straight under the Night Bus. Which she did, and stylishly too. Yeah Mrs. Malfoy! I look forward to your upcoming divorce proceedings.

As for Voldemort, he really needed a remedial look at the Evil Overlord List:

1. Killing fools, incompetents and traitors is fine, but once you start killing minions at random, everyone with sense leaves, and all you have left is fanatics, morons, and people waiting for the right moment to stab you in the back.

2. If you're going to put your soul in multiple vessels, don't put it in elementally themed sets in elementally themed locations (ie. the locket of Slytherin in the seacave, the cup of earth/Hufflepuff in the underground vault, the crown of air/intellect, ahem, diadem of Ravenclaw, in the highest tower of the magical school). Yes, it looks cool, but it makes it easy for people trying to find them (not the point with Horcruxes) and moreover makes you look like you ran out of budget or evil plot coupons since you never made the Sword of Gryffindor into another horcrux and hid it up a dragon's butt or somewhere similarly thematic.

3. Conjuring Gryffindor's hat at the last minute and lighting it on fire doesn't count. And if you'd read HOGWARTS, A HISTORY, you'd note that handing that hat to a Gryffindor is plain dumb.

4. No, you didn't turn into a snake, but it also doesn't help to have a big snake as your familiar. People tend to cut off their heads with swords. Really, it happens. That's why three-headed dogs are a better choice.

Beyond that, while I realize it's a children's book, and there are of course limitations of what can be talked about, the whole business with everyone wondering where all the Muggle-born wizards were coming from...hello, Polyjuice Potion or Love Potion or Imperius Curse + Memory Charm = ?

After all, we all know that Lucius wasn't getting any from Narcissa. And since we've never seen a brothel in Hogsmeade or even Knockturn Alley, one expects that someone would have SOME use for Muggles.

Of course we never saw the Weasely Brothers Adult Novelties line either, though you know they had it.

Admittedly this is straying towards slash, but the whole business of "Muggle-born" could be solved by someone inventing a magical blood test or slightly better divination..

As for the epilogue, I was wondering who Draco's unnamed wife is. This will obviously be solved in the movie credits, unless she's listed as "Draco's unnamed wife," but the bets are as follows:

1. Pansy Parkinson (Draco's old girlfriend)

2. Goyle in a dress (explaining the lack of description)

3. Established character we might not expect (Luna Lovegood would be interesting)

4. Character we've never seen. (I'm leaning towards a Texan witch who says, "Draco, fine, you can call him 'Scorpius' if y'all feel like it, but I'm gonna call our son 'Billy Bob,' y'hear?")

5. Dudley in a dress. (Saintly George Weasely decided to test out his new love potions. They work.)

You've dangled Professor Redshirt, ahem, Professor Burbage, over the Malfoy's dining room table while discussing all your plans for Eevil, and then, after taunting her with a light possibility of rescue by Snape, you feed her to your snake.

Wouldn't it be inconvenient if the ghost of the chatty professor who wrote a nasty letter about you AND HAD IT PUBLISHED went to Rita Skeeter and gave her an exclusive about where you were hanging out, what your plans were, and her opinion of the Malfoy china pattern?

Actually, come to think of it, Narcissa Malfoy was probably plotting to throw Voldemort under the bus for that idiocy alone.

So, really, the wizards have a very bloated government, given how little it does.

As for `how do you know Rowling doesn't share your opinion of the Ministry'? Well, I don't. However, I find it highly doubtful that wizarding society could exist as it does for any period of time.

The Minster for Magic is a crown minister that doesn't answer to Parliament; that's not just unconstitutional, it is the sort of thing that heads literally roll over. (See Charles I, James II.)

The Ministry of Magic taxes without Parliamentary consent, a gross violation of the British constitution, and again, an action that leads to heads rolling.

The Ministry of Magic asserts the right to use violence against people, including Muggles. It also denies Muggles various elements of natural justice. The use of force is a right exclusively reserved to Parliament; see the various Crimes Acts, etc., for what illegal use of force gets called.

Furthermore, it violates the assumption of a neutral Civil Service, in that several Ministers are drawn from within the Ministry. (Including one from the police equivalent. I'd mutter about police independence, etc., but the Minister is involved in so many conflicts of interest it isn't worth it.)

So, to sum, the Ministry is highly illegal, and by the standards of a liberal democracy somewhere between the pre-Civil Rights South and Apartheid Era South Africa, in terms of asserting rights to take action against disenfranchised people. It is deeply dysfunctional, and violates pretty well every constitutional convention the British have ever thought of. Certainly, should any Muggle Prime Minister find out about, I would judge it a grave duty to implement some form of Parliamentary oversight.

Furthermore, Azkaban qualifies pretty fully as torture, and, as far as I can tell, no-one expresses regret at sending people off to be tortured. (Possibly Dumbledore, but I think he merely sighs about how awful Azkaban is, in the same way that people sigh about how bad it would be to be locked up in prison, with out disparaging the penal system as a whole.)

All in all, the Ministry lacks a constitutional remit, taxes without consent, claims rights to use violence against non-voters, and tortures.

Come to think of it, maybe it could be highly stable...

I don't think that's how Rowling's Ministry works, in the sense that I don't think that she ever thinks about just how nasty it would be, were it internally consistent. Furthermore, I don't think that her characters think about that fact, although I did find the Oblivation of Hermione's parents quite creepy.

Alan Watts included a story in his lectures of a westerner, I think he even said it was someone he knew, visiting a Buddhist temple in Japan. He was mystified by the priests bowing to the Buddha as they passed by it, because he remembered that there is no divine consequence in Buddhism for misbehavior. Nirvana, for example, is the Sanskrit word meaning "nothing."

The Buddhists bowing and praying to the Buddha seemed as arbitrary as an atheist bowing and praying to the Buddha, so he approached one of the priests and said as much, and then said he would as soon as spit on the Buddha as bow to it. The priest replied, "You spits, I bows."

The Buddhists, like Kierkegaard, know angst is omnipresent in joy and in despair. The Buddhists therefore deny reason can be all things to anyone, and pray to the Buddha.

I think, to paraphrase Roosevelt, the only thing we have to fear is angst. Angst is the enemy because our mistrust in ourselves coerces us into strapping down our spontaneity and deny the inherent authenticity of our existence. Where love heals that mistrust in one's self, I agree "love saves you" is absolutely true.

However, in making themselves dependent on something they need the consent of others for, people will -- not always, but to a degree that nurtures the dysfunctions in a society -- conform to and identify with roles. Ironically, to keep love, which is supposed to validate us, we will invalidate ourselves by repressing our feelings and intuitions, which turn us eventually into ghostly worm-like things scurrying under Darth Vader armor. Love in these cases (which may be most of them) then becomes I think the menu we starve ourselves for confusing for the meal.

It also doesn't help that Albus apparently looks like a miniature version of Harry.

I've been saying that the next 7 books she writes will be a "Potter's Shadow" series, covering the same time span but following Bean... er Neville.

Voldemort ought to have read The Evil Overlord List, because then he would have made damned certain Harry was dead, and cut off his head to bring back to Hogwarts.

But this makes me think he might have read it after all:

5. The artifact which is the source of my power will not be kept on the Mountain of Despair beyond the River of Fire guarded by the Dragons of Eternity. It will be in my safe-deposit box. The same applies to the object which is my one weakness.

Yeah, quibble that it was Bellatrix's box and not his own. It was actually in the bank.

Thus proving that there is no One True Way for anything!

Also, I think it's pretty clear that Minister of Magic Luna Longbottom wouldn't be hooked up with Draco; she's too smart for him.

Raphael @ 287: I can think of very few books from which I can remember so many of the characters, even quite minor ones. The only characters I have trouble telling apart are Fred and George. I think the presence of multiple vivid (to the point of near-caricature) minor characters is one of the reasons Rowling keeps getting compared to Dickens (the other reasons being sales, and "Is Little Nell dead??"). Incidentally, I am not a Dickens fan, nor do I like Roald Dahl, with whom she is also often compared.

Sian @ #290: Actually, the more I think about things, with Voldemort or without, this society was pretty unwell. Hmm.

Necessarily so--it makes it plausible that Voldemort would have followers.

Kevin @ #308, I could actually see Luna and Draco, considering how uncannily clearsighted and straight-to-the heart sympathetic she is. She'd be capable of seeing him as a human being rather than an ex-Death Eater. Also, she's a pureblood, and blonde. And Draco is bound to be vulnerable to the Nth degree.

Or in other words, Dumbledore failed because he couldn't bring himself to destroy the ring of power.

good to know.

Kevin@308: he really needed a remedial look at the Evil Overlord List:

dibs!

;)

julia@319: he couldn't bring himself to destroy the ring of power.

that would make him... Borimir?

I was expecting Dumbledore to either come back as Dumbledore the White, or to come back as an Obi Wan Kenobi styled ghost. Or maybe come back and explain that polyjuice was involved and someone else had been killed by Snape. Or, possibly that his evil twin, with amnesia, had actually been killed.

I didn't expect him to come back as the Architect in Matrix Revolutions.

If you didn't catch it, in the scene where Harry and Ron think they're going to be expelled from Hogwarts for stealing the flying car, Dumbledore says he won't do it this time, and Snape's expression: "looked like someone had cancelled Christmas."

That's a direct lift of one of Rickman's lines from his appearance in _Robin Hood, Prince of Thieves_...

The encyclopedia would include back stories of characters she has already written but had to cut for the sake of narrative arc (“I've said before that Dean Thomas had a much more interesting history than ever appeared in the books”), as well as details about the characters who survive “Deathly Hallows,” characters who continue to live on in Rowling’s mind in a clearly defined magical world.

She also says she "couldn't bring herself" to kill Arthur Weasley.

I read the book straight away on Saturday, liked it quite well, and have since itched to start reading the whole series again from the beginning (but no time so far). Instead I've been coming up and playing around with all sorts of questions in my mind:

- In HBP, did Dumbledore give Snape the DADA post as a some sort of reward? (Obviously, it was the last chance to do that if this was the reason.)
- In HBP, did Snape's old Potions textbook end up in Harry's hands entirely by accident?
- Did Dumbledore tell Snape more about what he expected Harry's fate to be than what Snape chose to show Harry by way of his memories? (I'd guess he did, because Harry's survival was Snape's first priority and it would otherwise have been difficult to motivate him to act in the desired manner.)
- Did Dumbledore ever explain the Elder Wand thing to Snape at all?
- Which sword did Ginny et al. steal from the Headmaster's office – the real Gryffindor deal or the fake?
- Was Snape about to try and confide in McGonagall when she attacked him? (This couldn't have been anything but very difficult though.)
- Snape vs. McGonagall – which one would have won an all-out duel? :-) (Obviously, Snape didn't fight to kill when he faced her.)

And oh, I don't really either do or read fanfic, but what I'd very much like is the story of Snape breaking into Hogwarts in order to communicate with Dumbledore's portrait, which he must have done at some point in July. I imagine that the necessity of this maneuver was foreseen and discussed between Snape and Dumbledore before Dumbledore's death, and that Dumbledore took some sort of action to make it possible – although Snape being a highly capable wizard himself (and thoroughly familiar with Hogwarts), he may have managed it just about on his own. I'd also venture to guess that it was Dumbledore's portrait who leaked the time of Harry's removal from Privet Drive by the OotP gang to Snape, and that Snape told Voldemort the source was Mundungus... unless he was coolheaded enough to just plain tell Voldy that he'd extracted the info from Dumbledore's portrait in some manner.

Leah Miller @ 168: Brilliant, eloquent, right on the mark. Harry's comment to Albus Severus in the epilogue was too little, too late in terms of putting Slytherin into the gray area, too, which seemed to be the major theme in DH.

Also, I might be a little S-L-O on the uptake, but Grindelwald didn't strike me as so bad until I saw his prison's name was "Nurmengard." I wonder if she actually played "Nazi Scramble" to get that name or if it's just that it sounds German.

That being said, it was a very satisfying windup to the series. It had the rabbits-from-hats flaws that Greg is on about, but also had the strengths most of the other posters have seen as well. A good contrast to the rabbit-out-of-hat stuff is the many little hints JKR drops that become important or even crucial later, such as the Expelliarmus spell being Harry's "signature move."

There's a strong emphasis throughout the series on friendship, love, and helping. Harry almost always messes up when he goes it alone. Voldemort is the complete extreme on that, of course. And so on, well covered above.

Wizard society, culture, and government have the same problem. Wizards and their society are continually portrayed as idiosyncratic, self-obsessed, nutty, touchy, disorganized, inefficient, absent-minded, excitable, etc. This seems to be nearly the norm; it's hardly surprising their government exhibits the same characteristics.

As for its relationship to Muggle government, wasn't there a scene in HP6 where the Muggle PM (I think this would have been John Major -- see below) was warned about what Voldemort was doing? The implication was that although Wizard government is connected to Muggle government, the relationship is tenuous and intermittent.

A lot of Wizard society, including the government, looks like a fuzzy copy of Muggle society. I think Harry, Hermione, and the other Muggle-knowledgeable wizards spend the next 19 years working to reform the government and society, make it a little less a fuzzy copy; maybe even to have a Constitution... Perhaps the hypothetical project of interbreeding more with the Muggles was originally launched with precisely that intent; perhaps Harry is actually the Kwisatz Haderach. (Of course, then he would have been "supposed" to be a girl and marry Draco Malfoy.)

On the topic of time, we learn that Harry's parents died on Halloween, in 1980 (Harry was one year old). So the action of HP7 takes place in 1996 and 1997, and "nineteen years later" is 2015 or 2016. I have a strong suspicion that somehow the seven-year gap between the end of HP7 and the birth of Harry and Ginny's first child somehow relates to the complex math involved in reconciling the in-book date of 1997 with the real-world date when JKR last revised the epilogue. I'm not skilled enough to work it all out; it's more fun to imagine seven years of them playing hide-the-wand.

I'm sure there are many flaws. But I think I'd only go there if I wanted to make myself feel less inadequate as a writer than I already feel.

JK took old, tired ideas and wove them into a saga that has caused millions to love dear Harry & Co. THAT's magic.

Ginny's given name is Genevra.

According to someone who posted to an LJ community after hearing from mightygodking, mgk did receive a takedown order from Scholastic after posting the summary -- but he had previously received one for something he did regarding Archie Comics, and he then received a third one for the archive of altered Archies. The third notice was the anti-charm, as it were.

Fun convo. Thank you.

1. It's nice that Umbridge and Skeeter, who were built up as formidable villains earlier, don't really come to any particular good or bad end. They're just part of the adult world that we often have to deal with. And Skeeter is also yet another example of Harry jumping to conclusions about Bad Guys: a lot of the awful stuff she wrote about Dumbledore was fairly accurate, even if by accident.

2. I hope I'm not the only one who noticed an unusual number of *possibly* inadvertent obscene double-entendres... or at least things one might consider obscene double-entendres if one were 12 years old. I won't mention what any of these were, because it'd be really embarrassing in case I am the only one.

I will just say that one of them occurred on the last page of one of the final chapters, and involved the ambiguity of whether an em dash at the end of a sentence just indicates a suspenseful pause, or word(s) left out. I'm not sure how an editor let that one pass. But then, I may just be 12 years old.

You weren't the only one. I cracked up when Ron gave Harry the book about "Ways with Witches" or whatever it was called on how to get girls, and assured him that it wasn't "all about wandwork."

In fact. I'm still giggling a little.

Here, here! Best comment of the whole thread!

I can see two different explanations, but neither completely satisfies:

#1: Dumbledore said afterwards in that Matrix-style place that because Voldemort had used Harry's blood to rebuild his body, and Harry's blood in turn carried his mother's protection, there was this weird protection bond between them and Voldemort couldn't kill Harry as long as he himself lived. Apparently this didn't cover that bit of Voldemort's soul inside Harry, because Harry had acquired it after his mother cast the protection spell, and Voldemort in turn had lost it before he had acquired a share of that protection, so Voldemort's killing curse conveniently only killed that bit of his own soul.

#2: Since Harry was the master of the Elder Wand, Voldemort couldn't kill him with that wand, so again he only succeeded at killing that bit of this own soul inside Harry.

In both cases I wonder why Voldemort himself collapsed as well. The way I figure that creepy flayed baby in the Matrix (sorry...), it was the piece of Voldemort's soul that had been inside Harry and was now, like Dumbledore, dead. Voldemort reportedly could not feel the destruction of his Horcruxes in any way, but was this particular bit of soul actually a Horcrux? Maybe it was something that had maintained a rather closer connection with Voldemort and therefore caused a physical reaction?

I'm getting a headache here. :-)

and full of midi-chlorian....

;)

Well.

Of course, in Book 6 it's clear Ginny has had a bit more experience than Ron ...

What saved Harry was the blood that Voldy took from him, as it was the physical element that contained the protection Lily's death accomplished.

So Voldy zaps Harry, destroys the soul fragment, and collapses from the backlash of the spell's effect on Harry.

While Harry is playing dead, Neville manages to wipe out Nagini -- taking out the next to last soul fragment. Then Voldy is stupid enough to try one more killing curse using a wand that knows Harry is it's Master...and because Voldy has no more soul fragments to spare when the curse rebounds, THIS time he dies.

What saved Harry was the blood that Voldy took from him, as it was the physical element that contained the protection Lily's death accomplished.

actually means? How did it save him? I know what it says in the "King's Cross" chapter, I just don't understand it.

And why was there a backlash?

When you boil it down to basics, it's LOVE.

Lily's love forms a sort of shield that protects Harry, her death dumps all of her magical ability/power into that shield. When Voldemort takes Harry's blood in Goblet of Fire he's doing it so he can defeat Harry.

What Voldy forgets is the Law of Contagion, which dictates that what happens to one part happens to the whole being. Voila, backlash! (Which is one of the reasons he collapses when he zaps Harry, the other is that he's just destroyed one of his Horcruxes, which would produce a backlash as well.)

I believe the prophecy said that only one can live, and that one must kill the other. But because part of Voldy's soul is in Harry, and part of Harry's blood is in Voldy, neither can be killed completely, so neither can die. Catch-22.

When Harry gets hit by the killing curse from Voldy, it doesn't kill him, but sends him to the train station, which is some kind of limbo, and Dumbledore explains the catch-22.

But the killing curse from voldemort killed the part of voldy's soul that was in Harry, so now if Harry kills Voldy, he kills all of voldy, and voldy can die.

That's my understanding.

Now, why this catch-22 existed is something I have no clue about. It would appear to be purely a writer's invention to make the plot more than just a "harry kills voldy" straight shot story.

As far as I can tell, the "prophecy" basically introduced a plot token that needed to be dealt with before the finale could be reached.

That had to do with the fact that Harry was master of the elder wand, not anything to do with Harry's blood or the love from Harry's mother or anything.

So Voldy's spell against Harry bounced back to Voldy.

Which makes it clear that the backlash in question is the attack in which Voldemort kills his own horcrux rather than his intended victim.

First, we know, from book five, that there are enough wizards in Britain to fill half of a very large stadium. And not everyone would have gone to the Quidditch World Cup. There are enough wizards to justify maintaining Azkaban and the ministry (but not so many there needs to be more than one prison or one tier of government). There are enough wizards to keep two newspapers in business, a specialist wand-maker, several rock bands, a large hospital, the flue network, and a whole department of aurors. To me, that suggests a population in the hundreds of thousands, at least.

Second, consider that wizard society in general is quite archaic. I don't find it unusual a modern idea like universal education might have passed them by. I suspect that large numbers of kids just don't go to school at all; they're home schooled, or privately tutored (which would explain why Voldemort had to hire gangs of thugs to hunt down truants, who must have numbered in the thousands).

I think this idea of no universal education is supported by Hogwarts itself. Hogwarts is quite reminiscent of Rugby school, as it's described in Tom Brown's Schooldays. That is, it's an elite boarding school. I'd say kids go to Hogwarts because: (1) they're muggle-born and have to be introduced to the wizarding world; (2) like the Weasley's, they have a family tradition of going to Hogwarts; (3) their parents, like the Malfoys, have political ambitions, and seek status by sending their children to Hogwarts.

I didn't realize that the first attack harmed Voldemort, other than killing the bit of his soul that was in Harry. If there was a backlash on the first spell that directly harmed Voldemort, it was because of the Catch-22 in the prophecy. Why there was a backlash is as much a mystery as why there was a catch-22 in the first place. Maybe because Sybill Trelawney's prophecy made it true? Don't know. It appears to be an arbitrary magical rule that has no "why".

The why for the second backlash was because of the whole "elder wand" thingy, and Harry was its master. Voldy's spell bounced back and killed Voldy.

Which is convenient because I believe that means that, technically, Harry doesn't kill anyone in the entire series while a war rages on around him. Voldy kills Voldy.

You forgot one-- Draco = Cordelia. (Bwahahah.)

Unfortunately, I don't think there are a lot of other close correspondences within seasons 1-3; Giles doesn't have nearly as much authority within the high school as Dumbledore does (who in turn isn't as inimical as Principal Snyder), and as entertaining as it is to envision Viktor Krum as Oz, it just doesn't work. Mind you, the Mayor *does* turn into a giant snake at the end, so he might have some Voldy potential after all (though it's a stretch to squodge Bellatrix into Faith-- wrong generation, wrong role wrt Harry, though if Draco had been more successful at Death-Eating...?).

At least with Neville and the snake, well, the minute Harry told him about it, I knew Neville would be the one killing Nagini, and when the Hat appeared, I knew Voldemort had underestimated it. Voldemort's idea to put everyone in Slytherin was kinda bizarre, though.

Has anyone mentioned the Snape/Lily, Spike/Buffy parallel?

Which leads to the thought of Marsters as a Malfoy. Or a Black.

Probably not much more new I can say. (Yay, Neville.)

Didn't figure out who the flayed baby was. Good call!

I suspect the epilog wasn't for us. It was for Rowling. She needed it to keep going. The literary equivalent of a soldier in a muddy trench thinking about the girl next door and a nice house and the kids they'd have together.

I was surprised that Lupin & Tonk's boy wasn't immediately adopted by Harry.

Last night, after finishing reading through the Snape's memories chapter, and it was clear that Harry was going to have to die, I lay awake for a bit wondering how things would shake out. One thing I got right: Harry telling Narcissa that Draco was alive.

I really like the bit where Harry hears that Neville, Luna, and Ginny were having heroic adventures of their own. And their "punishment" confirmed that Headmaster Snape was still Dumbledore's guy.

Disappointed that the Dursley's totally dropped out of sight. I always liked imagining Harry returning home after graduating and giving them some expensive but tacky gift. And like someone way uptopic, I thought Petunia might have a role to play.

OH!

The puppet show on which that was based:

Harry Potter Puppet Pals

Was by Neil Cicierega.

Who?

He's the kid who did THIS:

Hyakugojyuuichi!!!

TV Says donuts are high in fat! Kazoo! There's a hobo in my room! Princess Laia, the yodel of life!

On reflection, I'm surprised that when Bill talks about hiding at Shell Cottage, he doesn't mention anything about the effects of pureblood chauvinism on himself (wrt marginal werewolf contagion) or Fleur (as part-veela).

Circular argument! Wizards aren't over governed because there are enough of them to support that size of government...

I'm pretty sure that it is mentioned that nearly every wizard goes to Hogwarts.

What I am saying is that either (a) Hogwarts is too small; or (b) the rest of the wizarding world is too large. The facts are severely inconsistent.

I get the feeling from various notes in the books that veela are socially acceptable magical creatures. Probably because they're so charming... it's hard to discriminate against someone who entrances nearly everyone they meet. This is also illustrated by how Fleur never makes any effort to hide her mixed parentage, whereas all other mystically-blooded humans do.

#365: One other possible variable in the population equation lies in the assumption that all members of the Wizarding population are, in fact, practicting wizards and witches. What we see of Wizarding folk in the books tends to promote this assumption, but I don't think it ever quite comes out and says so firmly. Thus one might argue that there is a large class of Wizarding citizens whose innate power levels are too low to go into active magical practice (much as not all Muggles are qualified to become Olympic athletes). If that were the case, then the "everyone attends Hogwarts" tradition could then be read to mean "everyone whose powers are strong enough to need formal training". Yes, this is stretching, but it's one of the easier ways I can think of to simplify the population problems.

Being in Harry Potter fandom means that someone has always seen the double entendre before you. Minerva McTabby is collecting the Deathly Hallows - The Rude Bits. I was reading the book with fannish goggles firmly in place, but certainly didn't see all these (I don't think I catch wand jokes automatically).

Stefan Jones @363:
I think you are totally right that the epilogue exists for her sake - both to give her something to work towards, and to provide a "nothing else happens, the story really is over" sense without having to resort to "rocks fall, everyone dies". A friend quoted the end of Jo's Boys on the subject which I think says it all.

Note that "everyone attends Hogwarts" would only apply to British wizards. There are at LEAST two other wizarding schools (probably more).

If abi@160's clever idea that the Latin translation should have spells in ancient Greek were true, then I'd expect the Greek translation to have spells in Egyptian. Or maybe Minoan.

But I suppose that both these translations have spells in the same language as the text?

If abi@160's clever idea that the Latin translation should have spells in ancient Greek were true, then I'd expect the Greek translation to have spells in Egyptian. Or maybe Minoan.

But I suppose that both these translations have spells in the same language as the text?

That isn't my point. My point is that most of the details invented by J K Rowling for her fictional world point to a population in excess of 100 thousand British wizards. If you're arguing that the wizarding world is over-governed, you're assuming a much smaller number. The only real argument in favor of a small population is that there is only one school.

Clearly, it's better to explain the dearth of schools than to argue that the whole look and feel of J K Rowling's world is wrong. Frankly, the most likely explanation is that JKR fudged the figures to make Hogwarts a more significant component of the wizarding world than it otherwise might have been. But I'm sure everyone would be happier with an in-world explanation.

"I'm pretty sure that it is mentioned that nearly every wizard goes to Hogwarts."

Reference?

If it was ever said that "everyone goes to Hogwarts", was it meant literally, as in, "Everyone is born with a brain." Or is it meant loosely, as in, "Everyone has an iPod." Is it literally everyone who goes to Hogwarts, or just everyone who's anyone?

Well, it is stated in the last book that only during Voldemort's newest reign did Hogwarts attendance become compulsory (except to Muggle-borns, who were hunted and imprisoned instead). The way I read it though was that practically every British kid with magical abilities did go to Hogwarts and only the odd case was either home-schooled or sent abroad to school by their parents.

I think Rowling has stated it quite clearly in the past that Hogwarts is the only school for young witches and wizards in GB, there are no other inferior schools which kids get sent to.

Dumbledore was about 150 when he died, and if he had retired before then, he would have retired as one of the most powerful wizards around. There could be more wizards than the school system allows for simply because wizard and witch lifespan go into two centuries. There would be wizards and witches around now who were alive during the American Revolution.

Also, this could effect population booms. The Weasleys could have been atypical of a population lockdown, with every other family honoring, say, a 3-4 child guideline.

I suppose it is possible that Harry-era Hogwarts has an unusually small student population, perhaps because of recent events WRT Voldemort etc. I mean, Harry's parents certainly don't seem to have chosen the optimum moment to settle down and raise a family, all things considered.

It may be that witches and wizards likely to have been having children at around the same time as Harry's parents were also those most likely to fall foul of the Dark Lord, either for consorting with Muggles / Muggle-borns or for having independant opinions or for just not killing their victims quite gruesomely enough. Voldemort's inner circle certainly seems to have been quite young at that time, as was the Order of the Phoenix (mark 1). If there were other anti-Voldie groups, they may also have been largely made up of witches and wizards who might otherwise have been starting families.

I'm not sure whether this can explain all of the difference in scale between Hogwarts and the British Wizarding world, but assuming that Harry's generation is unprecedentedly small does help a little.

from that link:

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

i iz in ur miniz3,
rev0lushunizing ur dudez.

Depends how many potential parents have been killed off...

I mean, Harry and Neville (for example) would not necessarily have been only children Had Things Been Different.

And some may have put romance (as well as childbearing) on the backburner during the Voldemort years.

But I think Mike's point about wizard longevity is probably a more important factor.

As for the sense of sorting people into houses the way it's done at Hogwarts, I've always considered it an excellent recipe for disaster. I mean, honestly, would you really separate the students into groups like this:

#1 the ambitious, cunning and unscrupulous,
#2 the hotheaded and daring to the point of recklessness,
#3 the intelligent,
#4 the nice and hard-working,

then strongly encourage competitiveness between the houses and NOT expect trouble?

But it is, of course, a way to get colorful stories. :-) And I'm not really complaining, I love to read the Harry Potter books.

One of the reasons, apart from the high death rate in Harry's parents' generation in the first Voldemort war? The quill that writes down the names of children who are offered places at Hogwarts, or whatever it is, has always been faulty and is becoming progressively more so. There are far more Muggle-born witches and wizards than it picks up. These are never inducted into the wizarding world, and they go on to appear in other authors' books; they're the kids who discover they have special powers, or are educated in other forms of magic.

I don't completely understand Harry's non-death in the forest either, but it's got something to do with him being prepared to die; I'm reminded of Cazaril in Bujold's Curse of Chalion. In terms of plot mechanics, though, it's clearly so that Harry can have another chat with Dumbledore, like he has in every other book.

The way I figure it now is that Harry's mental state had nothing to do with it really. I think that the point was that by not defending himself (the way Harry saw it, there was no point since he had to die anyway), Harry made it possible for Voldemort to (unintentionally) kill the Horcrux or Horcrux-type thing that was inside him. By defending himself he would have defended the Horcrux as well.

This could be just my theory, of course. :-)

I assumed it was to Voldy what Harry was to Harry (if that makes any sense) - his soul, or self, or whatever you'd call it. In a severe state of disrepair from having the Horcruxes ripped out of it - although why it's a baby, I don't know. State of emotional maturity?

Perhaps I just need to look up "flayed baby" in the forthcoming Encyclopaedia.

Man, think of the Halloween parties she could host...

And when 14 fans crowded around her in Edinburgh Castle in Scotland earlier this week as part of TODAY’s interview...

So it doesn't say it's her castle, and I doubt it is. :-)

Mind you, if I had Rowling's kind of money, I might buy a castle. Not to live in, but to entertain. Kind of like "Lord British" does.

Harry killed the basilisk, but I don't think he's killed any humans. I don't think he killed Voldy so much as Harry was in a set of circumstances such that Voldy killed Voldy, but that might be somewhat debatable.

Neville killed Nagani.

Ron/Hermione?

Some students were killed, but I don't know if any students killed anyone.

Some instructors were killed, and some instructors killed other characters, Snape->Dumbledore would count.

The Deatheaters handed out a lot of killing curses, and Voldy, of course.

Is there a tally somewhere that anyone knows of?

Somewhat similarly, there's Pettigrew as a friend of Harry's parents, though if the tally is limited to white-hats, things get more difficult.

Deaths in the Harry Potter Series

Deaths in the Harry Potter Series

There were very few one-on-one duels.

Molly Weasley is the only one? Wow. I was trying to think of any professors or any of the Order of Pheonix members who might have gotten a shot in somewhere. I didn't think any of the students got their hands dirty, but I was thinking more of the adults (the ones with the white hats) had gotten into the mud.

So, the only white hats who killed any human-like characters (during voldemorts return, not the first war) is Molly Weasley killing Bellatrix and Severus Snape killing Dumbledore?

In the real world it would, anyhow. But this is magic.

Kids, don't drop crystal balls on your parents' heads at home.

Will Molly Weasely get in trouble for using a killing curse?

There were a lot of Death Eaters who got debroomed during the Incident of the Seven Harries, and since Voldemort was apparently very unusual in being able to fly on his own, it seems likely that at least some of them didn't survive.

So, not directly striking people dead with AK or similar, but I don't think there was much doubt on the part of the Order that death was going to result.

But then he burst in just as Ginny was about to remind Harry what he was fighting for (or whatever the exact phrasing was). Maybe he was hoping Harry would use the book to get a different girl?

(I can't deny I have a dirty mind, but I don't think I'm imagining that Ginny was going to jump Harry's bones. As evidence, that was the only instance I can think of since book five that gave more description of making out than "X and Y snogged". Even Harry's first kiss with Cho was off-screen.)

In which case, the key moment in the HP7 movie ought not to be Mrs Weasley's bitch-sluggery but Minerva McGonagall leading a charge of animated Hogwarts desks.

There's a reason the climax is the Battle of Hogwarts, after all.

Hmmm. Do you think Rowling would be mercenary enough to allow [strikethrough]sharecropping[/strikethrough] licensed "next generation" stories? Picture an endless series of short books of the same quality as Chamber of Secrets where nothing of world-changing import ever happens and the characters pretty much stay the same year after year. Ugh.

Sweet Valley Hogwarts?

Hm, sort of set up the circumstances, and then let gravity do the dirty work. Kind of like the way Harry didn't have to out and out kill Voldy, just bounce his killing spell back at him.

So, I have the impression that the white hats manage to win the war with pretty much clean hands, and that seems to be the case. One direct kill (bellatrix), one voluntary sacrifice (dumbldore), a reflected killing spell (voldy), some disappearing brooms with very long falls (OotP), and the rest is non-lethal warfare (stun, disarm, etc).

Well, unless there's a lot of what we aren't shown, that would seem to be the case. From earlier books I gather that Aurors have killed Death Eaters in the past, and I wonder whether that's been all about the latter falling unconscious from the sky, but on the whole it's the Death Eaters who kill while the good guys try to capture and imprison.

I wonder though whether anyone outside of Harry who faced, say, Voldemort himself, would have considered Expelliarmus an appropriate and adequate spell to use in the circumstances...

In HBP, Dumbledore theorizes that Voldemort made Nagini a Horcrux when he killed Frank Bryce, the caretaker of the Riddle property, at the beginning of Goblet of Fire. Voldy had a physical body at that time, because he could hold a wand, but it wasn't a healthy body, since he needed Wormtail to carry him around. In the graveyard scene at the end of GoF, Harry gets a looks at Voldy just before Wormtail puts V. into the cauldron for the regeneration spell, and the description seems quite like that of the creature in the train station.

So Harry does die, sort of (at least, enough to destroy the Horcrux) but at the same time he doesn't, because his blood in Voldemort's body is tethering him to life. This is reminding me of Cazaril more and more.

It's not true that the power of the Elder Wand will be broken if Harry dies a natural death, even though he says so in the last chapter. He's forgotten that Draco got the wand off Dumbledore without killing him, and that he got the wand from Draco by Disarming him of a completely different wand. So all it takes is for someone to Disarm Harry while he's unprepared, and that person will be the master of the wand.

Her second ball smashed one of the large windows, just as the DEs were getting into the Great Hall. There is no mention of any more.

That's if he's defeated. But if Harry does die a natural death while still master of the Elder Wand, I think he's right.

Except that both Dumbledore & Draco never reclaimed their wands/recovered from the defeat. I suspect that if Dumbledore had managed to fight back and win, he would have retained ownership, and Draco's wand-losing fight with Harry was a clear loss.

At close quarters, you're looking at potential friendly fire issues in a radius centered on Voldy. May I recommend a Barrett 50 instead? If not, christmas is coming up and nothing is currently under my tree.

As for the elder wand thingy, I consider it unwise for Harry to set himself up for a circumstance such that for the rest of his life, at any moment, someone could do so much as a disarm spell, and become master of the elder wand.

Of course, I grew up in a country with a history including cowboys and gunsligners, and the idea of people lining up to challenge the fastest wand in the west, with the added bonus that winning means they get the ring of power, seems like an invitation for a life time of Harry looking over his back.

Even if someone inadvertantly defeated him, even not knowing Harry was master of the elder wand, anyone could suddenly gain a huge amount of power.

And as we know, Hobbits like Harry, folk who can resist the ring of power, are few and far between.

One Wand to rule them all and in the darkness bind them.

#405: Interesting point. For readers in love with Hogwarts, the notion of another load of kids to imagine about and relate to is probably very welcome.

Hmmm. Do you think Rowling would be mercenary enough to allow [strikethrough]sharecropping[/strikethrough] licensed "next generation" stories? Picture an endless series of short books of the same quality as Chamber of Secrets where nothing of world-changing import ever happens and the characters pretty much stay the same year after year. Ugh.

I have, in my imagination, a share-crop series set at the magical school in the French Quarter of New Orleans. It would take place after Harry's series, and a major event in year 3 or so would be Katrina. The American death-eater types would be magical neocons. The hero would be a Haitian restavek orphan.

I am so, so ashamed.

You did, when you said "RPG". They are not known for high accuracy. I assume you'd need a direct hit on voldy to take him out.

Was Draco in the crowd during the final duel? Because he must've been kicking himself house-elf style when he heard Harry's explanation.

If we had never heard of Polyjuice, having Mad-Eye turn out to be Crouch Jr. after some 650+ pages might, indeed, have seemed like a cheat. But we know how the potion works and how it is made--the first time I read "GOF", when Snape accuses Harry of stealing the necessary supplies from his office, it skated right by me. So what if the theft I thought he was referencing had been 2 years ago--Snape had a proven record of harping on old crimes. It didn't occur to me that someone was brewing up a fresh supply, just like it didn't occur to Harry.

What I like even better is how it gets deployed in Book 7--the kids know and (think) they understand Polyjuice, so they rely on it...and it gets them into trouble, not once, but twice. Breaking into the Ministry, they know they'll have perfect disguises, appearance-wise; they don't think through all the other implications of what it means to really be able to "pass" as the employees they're impersonating.

The Hermione-as-Bellatrix plan is even less well-thought-out. Harry goes so far as to say that having her actual wand will make the trick easier, realizing too late that the exact opposite is true--the Death Eaters know who stole the wand, so having it is a dead giveaway.

And this gets me to what I love most about these books. Dumbledore tells Snape to keep an eye on whatever schemes Draco might attempt, because "a frightened teenage boy is a danger to others, as well as to himself." This is hardly less true of Harry, Ron, and Hermione...granted, the Cattermoles are already in a precarious position before Ron takes on Reg's identity, but we're clearly meant to recognize the kids' ability to cause grave collateral damage.

Aberforth's derision, when he asks if the job Harry has been left is "the sort of thing you'd expect an unqualified wizard kid to be able to do without overstretching", echoes this exact concern, except he is speaking of Dumbledore, rather than Voldemort.