Potter finale NOW: book discussion! xxxxx SPOILERS!!!!

[Joël of the FoS]

Also, if JKR did it have all planned all along when she started the first, I'd say she would made a good RL DM

[alhoon]

Can we start putting up spoilers now? Because I mildy disagree with you Gotten in a couple of things.

[Joël of the FoS]

Sure. I changed the thread name for that.
Let's discuss the book!

Joël

[alhoon]

I liked the rythm of the book, very different from other books that were rythmed after the school year.

The wand vs wand ending was brilliant, I think. That was something we could not foresee, even while reading the 7th.

Actually I didn't like so much the early stages of the book where we know nothing, just have as many questions as they have about what is Voldemort looking for and the hocruxes. It was quite frustrating to read through 1/3rd of the book and see them hit on Voldy and Death-eaters mostly blindly or not doing anything than argue. All the other HP books had jokes and a moments of levity that broke the mood.
I also liked Hogwarts as grounds very much. It had interesting students and interesting professors. I didn't like that Harry with Hermione and Ron are only with themselves for 1/3 of the book, hidden from everyone.
That doesn't mean that I didn't like it, I would just prefer it to be placed in Hogwarts.

As for the wand vs wand thing I was not particularly fond of the idea, although it wasn't bad.
Since Harry gets proof the Hallows exist and decides to go for Hocruxes, I would bet that he would get the wand (if not the stone I admit). I did remember through all of this that Draco beat Dumbledor but I was confused by the fact that you need to kill the previous owner to get the acceptance of the Elder wand... the way everyone believed except Harry.

I also didn't like all the surprises. It seems to me that in order to make the book full of surprises Rowling forced things a bit. I would prefer Snape to remain evil for example. Or Harry to show common sense in the facts about Dumbledor instead of doupting him all the way to the end.

However I liked very much the feeling that people get needlessly killed. Voldemort doesn't kill those that oppose him, but those that get in the way. Dobby doesn't die in a pitched fight, but as Harry and him disapparate. Muggleborn suffer just because others hate them. When Hermione is targeted by Crabbe for killing, I missed a heartbeat when she throws her the killing curse when he just sees her face.
Also many of the people that die in a fight didn't have to die for the main book plot. But still it reminds you that one lucky shot and you get down Mad-eye moody the famous and powerful auror. One random blast and Fred is dead. Just that. Not overwhelmed by dozens of enemies on all sides etc.
It gives a sense of urgency in the book, reminds you that war isn't so much about heroics but of friends lost and innocents suffering. You want Harry to end all of this madness and suffering.

[LadySoth]

^Interesting comments.

I thought the book was overall pretty good, but I didn't care for the ending. To me, Voldemort seemed merely a stock character -- he was there to die, and he never really went through any character development during the series like most of the other characters did. Actually, I never even really felt all that concerned about Voldemort -- he just seemed like some sort of 2-D cartoon character of "evilness" with no depth. I think Rowling could have done better by him, and all the deaths at the end of the novel were pointless.

Strengths: the relationship between Harry, Ron and Hermionie became really interesting, and I liked the fact the Dumbledore and Harry were able to patch things up, although I didn't like Dumbledore being portrayed as being such a "bad" person -- he was just young and stupid, but he grew out of it, who really cares? IMO.

I liked that Sirius, Lily and James were able to come back and speak with Harry -- that scene was really beautiful.

Rowling is an amazing storyteller and a creative genius as far as creating a world peopled with (mostly) realistic characters who emote to the reader. I say she had to have outlined all 7 novels and created the world before she even began writing. I give her a lot of credit, even if I didn't like her ending. Go Rowling!!!

[alhoon]

all the deaths at the end of the novel were pointless.

That was their point... to be pointless. To show the reader that some people died for no reason at all, just because they got in the way of an evil spell.

[Drinnik Shoehorn]

Dumbledore is gay, apparantly.

Kinda makes me respect Rowling more, but I still hate her books.

[HuManBing]

I was watching the Goblet of Fire and you see Voldemort. He doesn't appear to have any nose.

I kept thinking "No, NO DAMMIT! He's supposed to be missing an EYE and HAND!!!"

[JinnTolser]

For the longest time I didn't want anything to do with this series. But About two weeks before the last book came out, I found myself with nothing to read, so I started in on them and found the series pretty enjoyable.

Although I can see some people's arguments about the book (especially the fact that Voldemort was a bit of a bland villain), there are only two things that I can honestly say bothered me when I finished the book.

1. Bellatrix being beaten by Mrs. Weasley was just not believable. Ever since her appearance in what... book four or five, she's been built up as this very powerful dark witch, and a killer duelist. She's the only person in the entire series we see able to block one of Dumbledore's spells, which came from the Elder Wand, no less. She kills Sirius Black after defeating both Tonks and Kingsley Shacklebolt in duels. She kills Dobby with a knife, and while that doesn't say anything about her wizarding prowess, it does serve to increase her badass factor. During the battle at Hogwarts she kills Tonks, and then proceeds to hold off three people at once in a duel, one of whom has been built up through the entire series as clever, resourceful, and powerful far beyond her years. Having this woman beaten by Mrs. Weasley is something like having Darth Vader be taken out by Admiral Ackbar.

2. No big redeeming moment for Draco. It was foreshadowed as far back as Half-Blood Prince, with his inability to "pull the trigger" on Dumbledore. I was looking forward to seeing him finally decide that these dark wizards he's been idolizing his whole life aren't the kind of people he wants to be around anymore, and really doing something about it. Instead, he mostly just stays out of the way and quietly goes about his life when it's all over. Very anticlimactic.

[Catman Jim]

Am I the only person who really doesn't care that J.K Rowling outed Dumbledore?

http://www.time.com/time/arts/article/0 ... html?imw=Y

I don't think it changes the storyline one bit if Dumbledore was 'more than just friends' with Grindlewald.

[JinnTolser]

I didn't know, and now that I do it doesn't bother me one way or the other.

[alhoon]

I didn't know, and now that I do it doesn't bother me one way or the other.

Well, it wasn't a surprise. After reading book 7 I had my questions, so I reread book 6 and he seemed like gay to me.
Biggest clue: He was really devastated when he was forced to admit how evil his "friend" was and that feeling was so intense that it was comparable with the death of his sister. It seemed quite like being let down by a lover, not a friend.
Clue 2: He had so many arguments with his brother. Well, at the time I read about the funeral the first time I wondered "OK, he blames Albus about the death. Later he forgives him but they still don't talk... " I guess there must be something else between them and at the time I wondered just how deep was Albus' friendship with the evil wizard that killed his sister and why his brother couldn't accept him. It seems that his brother knew about him and wasn't open-minded.

Clue 3 (the one I saw now, not when first reading the book): If you read between the lines of what was said about Dumbledor, you wonder: Why so much fuss about him? Is there a sex scandal in the book that Rowling just ommits? What is this all about his reluctance to face Grin-what's-his-name?

NOTE: If you read Drinnik's link you'll discover that the Dumbledors had more important family issues to hide than Albus being gay. I must admit that I haven't realized that one about Albus' brother in the book.

[Gonzoron of the FoS]

I just got to read this last month. Overall I was very pleased. Perhaps my favorite of the series. I agree that the "pointless deaths" were important in that they were pointless. I liked the change of pace of being out of Hogwarts, and also loved the inevitability of having the final battle take place there.

I saw Snape's revelation as a good guy miles away, (Didn't anyone listen to Dumbledore? He told Harry he trusted him completely and to stop bugging him! ) But I did like the way it made sense, what with Dumbledore's uncurable curse and all.

I did not like Snape's portrayal during the whole penseive flashback, though. Despite his loyalty to Dumbledore, he seemed very petulant and snivelling, not his usual self. I also agree that Voldemort's character remained lacking. you'd think that with all the backstory on him that we learn in books 6 and 7, that there'd be some sort of character there, but he just comes off as an extremely powerful spoiled brat. Not the embodiment of EVIL as he should be. The Malfoys were scarier.

Speaking of the Malfoys, I too wish that Draco had some sort of redemptive scene. I kept hoping for it, but alas no.

Anyway, despite these quibbles, I really enjoyed it. A very fitting end.

[alhoon]

About Snape: As pointed somewhere in the books: Not every evil wizard is a death-eater. Snape was not a good guy and died as bad guy. He went against Voldemort to revenge the killing the woman he loved, not from a desire to defend the innocent or . He may have felt some remorse about his acts as a deatheater, but it doesn't show in the books much IMO. Yes, he was capable of love but that doesn't make him a good guy.

About Draco: Yes, I expected he would have some redeeming scene, after all he wasn't that evil. He felt remorse when he tried to kill someone, but he also remains a bad guy to the end of the book. Remorse about killing doesn't make some one a good guy. Anyway Rowling probably decided to not fall in cliche and have Draco change sides.
He understands he's with the losing side, that what he does is wrong and... tries to keep out of the fight and safe. Just that. Naming his son Scorpius doesn't show any redemption either.

[Gonzoron of the FoS]

About Snape: As pointed somewhere in the books: Not every evil wizard is a death-eater. Snape was not a good guy and died as bad guy.

I'm not saying he should be ultimately good. Just not as weak and petulant as he seemed. Perhaps it's a case of Harry's child perception of him, but in previous books, he seemed more badass and confident, and less whiney.

Anyway Rowling probably decided to not fall in cliche and have Draco change sides.

I guess that's possible. It just seemed so "right" for some reason.

Naming his son Scorpius doesn't show any redemption either.

Is there some significance of that name I missed? Or is it just evil-sounding, as opposed to something more normal like James and Harry?