[SPOILERS] Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows [SPOILERS]

[Meddling Mike]

I found the other thread trying to avoid spoilers was killing the discussion, so I figured a spoiler friendly thread with fair warning in the title was fair game.

I was a bit underwhelmed by the ending. Thinking about it, I wouldn't have been happy if Harry had died either. The ending was a bit too sappy. Sure, Rowling killed some periphery characters in Lupin, Tonks and a random Weasley, but none of the main characters, not Ginny. The whole thing had a very Cedric Diggory feel to it, overdramatized at the time then quickly forgotten. I also expected Harry to take some sort of parental role towards his godson, Tonks and Lupin's newborn son, in the epilogue the way Sirius seemed to have in mind for him and Harry, but the epilogue seems to suggest the child is raised by somebody else.

[LordHomerCat]

The whole epilogue was pretty unnecessary for enjoyment of the book (at least to me), and frankly if I hadn't bothered to read it, well, I wouldn't have missed anything.  I guess it makes sense in order to sort of "clear up" the ending and solidify the idea that there's no more books coming.

I also saw a lot of parallels between Tonks's kid and Harry, and was really hoping that would be expanded on (parents killed fighting Voldemort, son left with only a Godfather, etc.), but as you said it frankly was just kinda thrown in there as a minor and unimportant point.  That whole thing seemed like a waste (as in, it could have been more).

I enjoyed the book a lot, but looking for some sort of literary or political meaning seems tough.  I mean, I just don't see Harry Potter having any sort of grander purpose beyond being a good story (and some basic good over evil, etc. etc. stuff).  It was a great story, lots of fun, and very exciting, but I guess I am a little sad that, with the enormous reader base and incredible amount of exposure the books have gotten Rowling didn't seem to try to be anything more than a fantasy author.  Granted, not trying at all is better than trying and failing miserably and ending up with some preachy annoyance, but I guess it kinda pains me to see her as one of the most profitable authors in history when there are a lot of others out there who are better writers and have better/more important things to say, but they don't write about lightning bolt scars and muggles so they don't get the credit.

Also, I definitely spent the first 500+ pages thinking "if they don't expand on why Snape did what he did, I think I'm going to have to burn this book when it is finished because that is the stupidest thing ever."  Luckily, my wish was satisfied.

Also, as far as the epilogue, I thought it was kinda sappy how Harry married Ginny, Ron married Hermione, like, I feel that would have been much better left to the reader's imagination than just blatantly tacked on at the end.  In fact, the whole "and everyone lived happily ever after" part bothered me,because while it made  lot of readers happy because they can't stand anything but happy endings, I personally feel that there's a lot to be said for letting your readers make their own assumptions, and leaving it like it was would have made me much more satisfied (as I could still hold the idea that not everything is perfect in Christmas land, I mean, London).

I apologize if a lot of this is rambling, I'm curious what other people's takes on the book were and if I'm just completely insane on some of these things.  If nothing else, I wish there was more to read, because for all its flaws, it sure was fun to read (when stuff was happening).

[orgcandman]

Granted, not trying at all is better than trying and failing miserably and ending up with some preachy annoyance, but I guess it kinda pains me to see her as one of the most profitable authors in history when there are a lot of others out there who are better writers and have better/more important things to say, but they don't write about lightning bolt scars and muggles so they don't get the credit.

I disagree with the above bolded part. It's hard to have overflowing respect for someone who doesn't try hard but succeeds, as opposed to someone who tries very hard but fails.

Also, I definitely spent the first 500+ pages thinking "if they don't expand on why Snape did what he did, I think I'm going to have to burn this book when it is finished because that is the stupidest thing ever."  Luckily, my wish was satisfied.

This is one of the few things that I actually sortof already knew going in.

Also, as far as the epilogue, I thought it was kinda sappy how Harry married Ginny, Ron married Hermione, like, I feel that would have been much better left to the reader's imagination than just blatantly tacked on at the end.  In fact, the whole "and everyone lived happily ever after" part bothered me,because while it made  lot of readers happy because they can't stand anything but happy endings, I personally feel that there's a lot to be said for letting your readers make their own assumptions, and leaving it like it was would have made me much more satisfied (as I could still hold the idea that not everything is perfect in Christmas land, I mean, London).

I think that was also to prevent future usage of the characters. If it had just left off, some other author could have reused Harry Potter, Hermione Granger, and Ronald Weasley and had an instant best seller just on the fan base alone. Now, most people won't really care. "Oh, they've got kids and stuff, they can't do much adventuring. This book will suck."

I apologize if a lot of this is rambling, I'm curious what other people's takes on the book were and if I'm just completely insane on some of these things.  If nothing else, I wish there was more to read, because for all its flaws, it sure was fun to read (when stuff was happening).

I found the entire series really clumsy. I can't point to specific instances at the moment, but there are definitely plenty of times where an eyebrow is raised and one finds that the suspension of disbelief has been broken.

-Aaron

[xthexpunisherx]

Also, as far as the epilogue, I thought it was kinda sappy how Harry married Ginny, Ron married Hermione, like, I feel that would have been much better left to the reader's imagination than just blatantly tacked on at the end.  In fact, the whole "and everyone lived happily ever after" part bothered me,because while it made  lot of readers happy because they can't stand anything but happy endings,

The only thing I have to say to this is that books, 4, 5 and 6 didn't have happy endings.  Actually all of them had really sad depressing endings.  Heck we all had to read that Harry was going to walk to his certain doom with the shadows of his loved ones.  Having Harry die at the end would have been unacceptable.  Imagine the outrage?  What a wonderful message to everyone "Work really hard, try to be a good person and fight for whats right and get murdered for your trouble".  No matter what it's still a children's book and I was impressed to the extent the author tried to play into the fact that Harry had to die. 

Now as for other comments about the middle of the book being boring I agree.  Actually I felt both 6 and 7 had a really weak 'middle' to them.  Like she was just trying to make sure the books were over 700 pages.  As for the epilogue I didn't mind it at all, the author had a choice either allow people to speculate what happens and in doing so make her life a living hell until she answers the questions or do her best to answer the questions in a somewhat imaginitive way and leave some margin for more expansion.

Heck she has already done interviews trying to answer questions like what Harry, Ron and Hermoine do for jobs.  I think too many people are too hard on her.  She was in the ultimate no win situation.  End the most successful fantasy series of all time in a way to piss off the fewest people and make it so you limit the amount of questions that are asked of you in the future.  If I were her I would have bought a large island and moved their for a few yearsso I don't get asked question after question.

Off of that rant I want to ask everyone else this.  I've been discussing it with one of my friends.  I feel that one of the overall messages in this book was the revilation that Snape didn't know what love was and what it in the end cost him.  The fact that he was in love with Lily for so long and the way he continually messed it up time and time again to the point where he didn't realize that having Voldimort not kill her wouldn't make her love him.  In fact it probably would have made her hate him even more.  I thought this was an excellent message that manifested itself in his hatred for harry even though he should have cared about him because the woman he loved sacrificed his life for him, but instead because he looked like his rival for Lily's affection he treated him badly.

Did anyone else see this or was it just me?

[LordHomerCat]

I guess the idea that they are children's books is an important one to keep in mind.  I guess I really was hoping for them to be somewhat more, but when I said I didn't really fault her for not wanting to make them more, it comes with the fact that they are books for kids, and as such the messages they carry are adapted as such.

If Harry had died at the end, but had killed Voldemort as well, it would not have sent the message (to me) that following your beliefs is a good way to die.  I believe it would have showed the courage Harry possessed and given a great example of the sacrifices that sometimes must be made for the good of mankind.  In fact, it would have portrayed Harry as incredibly courageous without sugar-coating the fact that sometimes, being courageous will not mean everything always turns out OK for you, but that its still often the right thing to do.  Of course, Harry showed he was willing to make that sacrifice, but by letting him live, it felt like it was saying "since he wanted to do the right thing, nothing bad can happen to him, love protects you from everything, etc. etc."  Since this was a children's book, I can forgive that naivety, but from any more important literary work, that kind of unfettered optimisim and fantasy would not sit well with me.

As a pessimist (a realist, if you will), I do enjoy a book without a happy ending.  This is not to say I don't like when things turn out OK, but I do enjoy a healthy realism, where people who are supposed to die actually do just that.

Plus, killing Harry would make it really hard to write Harry Potter 8, which would defeat some of the purpose of that epilogue (keeping others from writing more stories about him).  On the epilogue: I can understand that she doesn't want to have to answer questions forever, but I would be very disappointed if it was written out of laziness (because she didn't feel like having to explain it to people in interviews and such).  I mean, given the incredible universe she created, she should be excited that people have such interest in it, and should not be looking for a way to never have to talk about it again.  It would be like George Lucas ending Star Wars ep. 6 with a small little epilogue stating "And after that, everyone was happy forever and all the bad guys were gone and nothing bad ever happens in the universe again... ever."  I just wish she had left it to the imagination and not tried to "protect" her characters from other's writings, as I feel that if she doesn't want to write about Hogwarts anymore, she should allow others to expand on that world (a la Star Wars), as there is so much there which could make for some very good stories.

[jcb193]

Also, I definitely spent the first 500+ pages thinking "if they don't expand on why Snape did what he did, I think I'm going to have to burn this book when it is finished because that is the stupidest thing ever."  Luckily, my wish was satisfied.

This is one of the few things that I actually sortof already knew going in.


Wow, you are very intuitive, I didn't see this coming from a mile away. 

Anyway, since this is the spolier page, I had a few problems. (and it's okay to bitch, she had 10 years to prepare for this book).

1.) Ron-Hermoine, Harry-Ginny was nice for the kids, but how many high school relationships make it
2.) I thought the whole Deathly Hollows seemed really well fleshed out, but completely under-utilized.  It seemed ancillary to the story, helped portray Dumbledore a little better, but overall seemed a little irrlevent.
3.) Why was is assumed that Voldemort made 7 horocruxes (yet didn't know Harry was the seventh).  Wouldn't he have made another?
4.) I think Harry versus the horocruxes could have been a book in itself.  200 pages for the final 5 was a little weak (then again she threw in 3 hallows).
5.) I expected more of the Harry vs Voldemort than a wand technicality. 
6.) Would Malfoy's mom really risk an opportunity to kill Harry and/or displease Voldemort?
7.) I loved the Dobby death scene and Harry walking into the woods.  I thought she nailed those passages.  She also nailed the frustration that Harry and Ron and Herm were going through.  As a reader, I also felt their frustration.
8.) Lupin/Tonks death seemed understated

Otherwise a very enjoyable read. I am glad I holed up in the house for 12 hours (I have no idea how some of you people read it in 4-6 hours.  Amazing!)

[diopter]

3.) Why was is assumed that Voldemort made 7 horocruxes (yet didn't know Harry was the seventh).  Wouldn't he have made another?

In Book 6, Riddle had that conversation with Slughorn where he suggested that he might split is soul into 7 (therefore 6 Horcruxes and his body) because 7 was the most powerfully magical number. I had the impression that Harry being the seventh Horcrux was accidental. Also I could believe something like Voldemort not being able to tear his soul apart any further because he had so little left.

[xthexpunisherx]

3.) Why was is assumed that Voldemort made 7 horocruxes (yet didn't know Harry was the seventh).  Wouldn't he have made another?

In Book 6, Riddle had that conversation with Slughorn where he suggested that he might split is soul into 7 (therefore 6 Horcruxes and his body) because 7 was the most powerfully magical number. I had the impression that Harry being the seventh Horcrux was accidental. Also I could believe something like Voldemort not being able to tear his soul apart any further because he had so little left.

Crown of Ravenclaw
Nagani
Hufflepuff's cup
Slitherins Locket
Gaunts Ring
Riddles Journal
Harry

Are what I remember for the horcruxes but how did he get into that babyish form in Book 4 which led to his ressurection in the graveyard with the bone blood and flesh?   I'm sure the answer is pretty simple but It's slipping my mind at the monment.  Was the explaination that the part that was left of his soul from his original body was just floating around?  Or what?

[jcb193]

What I was asking, was if he planned to make 7 horocruxes (or whatever), and one of them was accidently Harry, wouldn't he try to make another Horocrux- assuming that he was unfinished?

[LordHomerCat]

As stated earlier, I think it was supposed to be 7 pieces in total (6 horcruxes plus himself).  This would mean Harry was the unintentional 7th Horcrux (8 total pieces).

[policehq]

What I was asking, was if he planned to make 7 horocruxes (or whatever), and one of them was accidently Harry, wouldn't he try to make another Horocrux- assuming that he was unfinished?

I don't think he knew that happened the night he tried to kill Harry; I certainly doubt he would've made it one of his primary objectives to kill Harry if he had.

-hq

[jcb193]

As stated earlier, I think it was supposed to be 7 pieces in total (6 horcruxes plus himself).  This would mean Harry was the unintentional 7th Horcrux (8 total pieces).

Ahh.  Gotcha.  Sorry!

[Jacob Orlove]

I enjoyed this book a lot, but I'm quite surprised to hear that people didn't expect pretty much all of it going in.

[Nefarias]

I enjoyed this book a lot, but I'm quite surprised to hear that people didn't expect pretty much all of it going in.

Yeah, I tried my hardest just to try not to speculate anything so that going in, whatever happened was as surprising as possible.  Looking back on the majority of what happened, with the exception of some of the deaths, it felt like it all couldn't've happened any other way.

[Jacob Orlove]

Oh, I was speculating like mad. Well, not really speculating, just extrapolating, since the broad outlines of the entire plot were obvious. When she announced that exactly two main characters died, that pretty much locked it up.

[policehq]

Oh, I was speculating like mad. Well, not really speculating, just extrapolating, since the broad outlines of the entire plot were obvious. When she announced that exactly two main characters died, that pretty much locked it up.

The quote actually was that two characters she did not originally intend to kill while writing the earlier books did end up dying.

Plus, Harry did not die. You didn't predict that correctly.

-hq

[Jacob Orlove]

Oh really? I heard "two main characters die" from a bunch of articles, but I guess I never saw the direct quote.

And I don't think I posted predictions anywhere online, did I?

[LordHomerCat]

I tried very hard not to speculate and especially to avoid any possible references online or in other media, so I had not heard about 2 main characters dying or anything else.  I find I enjoy books like these a lot more if I try not to speculate about what might happen but rather to just let it unfold before me.  Looking back, theres not a lot that could have realistically happened differently, but I try not to look ahead if I can avoid it because, if I do that and I'm right, its generally rather disappointing.

[policehq]

Oh really? I heard "two main characters die" from a bunch of articles, but I guess I never saw the direct quote.

And I don't think I posted predictions anywhere online, did I?

No, but you recently posted that you knew the details.

When she announced that exactly two main characters died, that pretty much locked it up.

The biggest clue supplied for information that Harry would live was given in the fourth book: Voldemort used Harry's blood, and thus Lily's blood to reform his body. Everyone has had all this time to post that online and speculate, speculate, speculate until they figured it out, but no one posted Harry would live because of this. I kind of doubt people that weren't involved in online discussion of the end had anything more figured out than The Leaky Cauldron et al all those years.

-hq

[zimagic]

Also, I definitely spent the first 500+ pages thinking "if they don't expand on why Snape did what he did, I think I'm going to have to burn this book when it is finished because that is the stupidest thing ever."  Luckily, my wish was satisfied.

First, about Snape, there had to be more there. There was no way she could leave it as "Oh, and Snape WAS rotten to the core the whole time anyway! HA!!" The success of the entire series rested more on her dealing successfully with the whole Snape thing more than it dealt with Harry's adventures. I think she nailed it too.

1.) Ron-Hermoine, Harry-Ginny was nice for the kids, but how many high school relationships make it

A lot of the criticism for the last chapter says it's too pat but if you go back to the first 2-3 books and compare the style of writing with that chapter it's obvious that she wrote the ending to be "Harry & Ginny, Ron & Hermione" at the very beginning and decided not to change it too much when she go round to finishing #7. What results is a huge change in style, depth & complexity from the end of the battle scene to the Platform 3 & 3/4 scene.

I like it as it's still a children's book and I think it's a reassuring end for younger readers after the extremely complicated and bloody chapters that preceeded it.

To a more mature reader it feels like a kop out and that she just wanted to get the book out into the shops (which is also possible)

My major beef with the last chapter is the lack of details about Harry's godchild, about harry & Ron's lifestyle (are they posing as muggles? Why is there only a slow recognition of Harry once on the platform? He's the Boy who lived twice!! Why does his own daughter not know about his past?) and that's it's just a little too short. I would have preferred just a little extra post-battle and a little more on the platform.

2.) I thought the whole Deathly Hollows seemed really well fleshed out, but completely under-utilized.  It seemed ancillary to the story, helped portray Dumbledore a little better, but overall seemed a little irrlevent.

It was the plot driver for the period that Harry was out in the wilds. There wasn't enough flesh on the "we have to find the next horcrux!" plotline to drive the narrative. The Deathly Hallows drove the plot at it's quiet points and gave a huge amount of insight into one of the series' main characters.

4.) I think Harry versus the horocruxes could have been a book in itself.  200 pages for the final 5 was a little weak (then again she threw in 3 hallows).

But she wouldn't have made a 200 page (and 8th) book and Harry's victory over the horcruxes was the story in Deathly Hallows, not actually Harry and the Deathly Hollows.

5.) I expected more of the Harry vs Voldemort than a wand technicality. 

Why? It's been proven that Tom Riddle/Voldemort was an exceptional wizard, far beyond the abilities of the above average Harry Potter. Harry never showed the natural magical gifts that Tom, Snape or Dumbledore did. Something else was needed and Rowlings even forshadowed the duel with the "Expeliramus" at the start in the Death Eater duel when they were escaping from Privet Drive and Lupin (?) admonishing Harry not to depend too much on it, that he had let it become his signature spell.

He defeated Voldemort with the same spell causing Voldemorts own spell to rebound.

7.) I loved the Dobby death scene and Harry walking into the woods.  I thought she nailed those passages.  She also nailed the frustration that Harry and Ron and Herm were going through.  As a reader, I also felt their frustration.

The Harry-Ron-Hermione relationship was really good in this book, agreed!

8.) Lupin/Tonks death seemed understated

But not as much as Weasleys'. As mentioned above, I really feel that this section needed more from Rowling, though again, it is a children's book and now that Harry has won, how much wallowing in remorse (and absolutely no offense meant here) can she inflict on her younger readers? I would have been as disappointed with another Dumbledor's Tomb chapter as I was with the very little follow-on.

Remember back to the very beginning when Dursley is greeted on the street by the very funnily dressed man celebrating "He's gone!" and Owls everywhere? I wouldn't have minded a respectful celebration with the major characters while the rest of the wizarding world went wild and some "what now?" conversations with Harry & co.

Still. Great read and as soon as I've finished moving house, I'm back into it again. in the meantime all I have to console myself is the torture I'm inflicting on my French colleagues who are waiting on the French translation!! mmmwwwwwaaahaaaaahahahahahah!!

[Jacob Orlove]

The biggest clue supplied for information that Harry would live was given in the fourth book: Voldemort used Harry's blood, and thus Lily's blood to reform his body. Everyone has had all this time to post that online and speculate, speculate, speculate until they figured it out, but no one posted Harry would live because of this. I kind of doubt people that weren't involved in online discussion of the end had anything more figured out than The Leaky Cauldron et al all those years.

-hq

Oh, I don't mean that I "figured out" the precise mechanics by which anything was going to happen, because that's really dumb to even worry about. I'm just talking about the structure of the plot, in terms of Harry doing the noble self-sacrifice thing, and not dying/coming back from the dead because he is Good and Voldemort is Evil. It's a familiar structure to anyone who read The Lion, The Witch, and the Wardrobe (or, y'know, the New Testament), and is really the only trope that fits the plot.

[Hi-Val]

I thought it was a good read. There was a LOT less deus ex machina than in other books; Harry & co actually outsmart things instead of having Fawkes fly in with the sword right as Harry is going to die.

There were some major plot holes I found-- for example, how did Neville get the sword from the goblin who took it?

Speaking of Neville, he was my favorite character through the series and I think he was handled well in this one. I would have really liked to see him take out Bellatrix in revenge for what she did to his parents, though. Similarly, I think Luna was portrayed well. I liked the part about their portraits painted in her room.

Whenever I read Snape's parts, it was in Alan Rickman's voice in my head.

The ending left too many things unsaid. Did Harry become an Auror? Who was the new head of Hogwarts? Hagrid and Olympe? Nineteen years is a freaking long time. I'd have liked another entire book as an aftermath.

[Necrologia]

how did Neville get the sword from the goblin who took it?

The same way Harry found it the first time: he pulled it out of the sorting hat. Like Dumbledore said back in the second book, it's a magical sword that comes to the aid of Gryfindors in need. Presumably it just disappeared from the goblin's possession when Neville reached in to grab it.

As for the epilogue, there was an interview with Rowling that gave a bit more detail. Harry became the head of the Auror office with Ron under him, Herminione's high up in magical law enforcement, and Hagrid's still gameskeeper.

[andrewpate]

In the interview, she also stated that the head of Hogwarts was McGonnagal at first, then "someone else," as McGonnagal is getting too old.  She also said that the Ministry of Magic is a really good government now with a much more effective bureaucracy and that Harry, Ron, and Hermione are 3 of the primary architects of that.  Luna has figured out that not every crazy thing her dad comes up with is really true, but she still "marches to her own beat."  No detail on what she does for a living.

[policehq]

how did Neville get the sword from the goblin who took it?

The same way Harry found it the first time: he pulled it out of the sorting hat. Like Dumbledore said back in the second book, it's a magical sword that comes to the aid of Gryfindors in need. Presumably it just disappeared from the goblin's possession when Neville reached in to grab it.

In addition, Dumbledore explains to Snape that the sword must be taken in an act of bravery; Griphook cheated the sword out of Harry's possession and was deemed unworthy. Unfortunately the book does not explain what happens to the sword if dishonor is involved with its extraction, but JK Rowling has "it's a book about magic!" as a reply to any plot holes like this.

-hq

[Hi-Val]

I am really pissed that she killed off Fred too. You don't kill the sources of comic relief in your works, especially if they're good people like that.

Also, did anyone catch not only that Lupin's name is like Lupus, and that Remus is the name of one of the men who was weaned by a wolf and founded Rome, and that his radio name, Romulus, was the other? I thought it was neat.

[andrewpate]

I am really pissed that she killed off Fred too. You don't kill the sources of comic relief in your works, especially if they're good people like that.

Yeah, at that moment I kind of thought of the DVD commentary from the last episode of Buffy, where Joss Whedon says that you have to kill someone important in order to give the battle a "cost," as it otherwise feels like a fairy tale.  Whedon is of course the king of this, as anybody who's watched any of his works can tell you.

Still, I can see the difficulty for Rowling, here:  you have essentially three characters who can't die and still have a "happy ending," which she obviously wanted.  Below them, you have several highly sympathetic but ultimately disposable characters, after which you have the kind of support cast.  She can kill off a few support characters, such as Lupin and Tonks, but it doesn't seem "heavy" enough unless someone on that middle tier dies, also.  Dobby is such a character, but was he really enough (esp. given that he did not die at the Battle of Hogwarts).

Offing a Weasley twin, then, is both obvious and jarring, but what would have been better?  Leave everyone we really cared about alive?  Kill Luna, or Neville, or a Weasley parent?  It's like "the Rostenkowski thing" from Sports Night:  I don't like it, but do I really have a better idea?

Subject change:  Mrs. Weasley killing Bellatrix?  It's made pretty clear that Arthur Weasley is extremely powerful, but we never see Mrs. Weasley do anything but super-cooking.  They do indicate that she's remarkably proficient at that, but, humor aside (I loled), it was a bit of a shift.  What did you guys think about it?

[Hi-Val]

I thought Mrs. Weasley was really one-dimensional. Aside from seeing her Boggart, we really only know her for being ultra-mom and screaming at everyone around her. She's straight out of a sitcom. Even at the end, she's being ultra-mom, defending her family. Her fight with Bellatrix could have still happened but I would have liked it to be handled with Mrs. Weasley being more of an individual character. All in all though, Neville should have killed Bellatrix.

Actually, I kind of wish we'd seen more magic and skills from Arthur and Mrs. Weasley. Most of what they were doing was behind the scenes.

I'd have killed off Percy instead. He comes back, wants to rejoin the family, and then he's killed. Everyone hurts even more because he's come right back into their lives again, they want to recreate their relationship with him, and this time there's no way to do that.

Also, I was really thinking that when Harry assembled the Horocruces, he'd be master over death and bring the recently deceased back to life, like full life. Oh well.