# Harry Potter & The Deathly Hallows  - POTENTIAL SPOILERS



## Steel_Wind (Jul 19, 2007)

*This post is almost spoiler free* The only HINT of a spoiler reference (and it's a VERY opaque reference) is blacked out.

I have two copies of this book coming on Saturday. One for my wife - one for my eldest daughter.

As is readily apparent, as a consequence, I would not get to read this for a while. So I took steps and spoiler-proofed my self last night. 

I downloaded it and am now spoiler-proof. I've read this thing cover to cover. I'm done. 

It was pretty good. Some memorable scenes - some filler; some surprises - and non-surprises. I won't get any more specific than that, though there is one continuity issue which is bugging me me  that I want to talk about in relation to 



Spoiler



The Sword in the Sorting Hat


 which I would like to discuss with anybody else who has read it.

It's been a VERY long time since I got a book (well - hell - not even a "book" this time, but you know what I mean) that I literally did not stop reading once I commenced. I stayed up all night and blew through 650 pages - with the remaining 100 read during my lunch hour today.

So by that test, it's a worthy book.


----------



## The Grumpy Celt (Jul 19, 2007)

Is it true, as reported on the Colbert Report, that Hermy is a Dude?


----------



## Steel_Wind (Jul 19, 2007)

The Grumpy Celt said:
			
		

> Is it true, as reported on the Colbert Report, that Hermy is a Dude?




It says right here: untrue.


----------



## Olgar Shiverstone (Jul 19, 2007)

Staying spoiler free until I read the book -- but after the 21st, it would be interesting to find out how many of the online "spoilers" are correct, and how many are hoaxes.

With all the trouble they've gone through to control release of this book, it's a shame people are posting the whole thing to the Internet.


----------



## Rabelais (Jul 20, 2007)

The New York Times has a review of the book up online.  Very positive review.  Paraphrasing... don't expect a Soprano's-esque closure... It goes out with a pretty large bang.


----------



## Steel_Wind (Jul 20, 2007)

Rabelais said:
			
		

> The New York Times has a review of the book up online.  Very positive review.  Paraphrasing... don't expect a Soprano's-esque closure... It goes out with a pretty large bang.




I have read the review and mostly agree with it.

And yes - closure with a bang.


----------



## RigaMortus2 (Jul 20, 2007)

Just out of couriosity, where could one find the copied book pages, or at least accurate spoilers from the book (as opposed to just rumors)?  I am not that into HP, not the books anyway, so I don't mind spoiling it for myself and finding out who dies...


----------



## Klaus (Jul 20, 2007)

RigaMortus2 said:
			
		

> Just out of couriosity, where could one find the copied book pages, or at least accurate spoilers from the book (as opposed to just rumors)?  I am not that into HP, not the books anyway, so I don't mind spoiling it for myself and finding out who dies...



 I suspect that by tomorrow (once the book's been on the street for a few hours), there'll be dozens of spoilery pages, including Wikipedia.


----------



## cignus_pfaccari (Jul 20, 2007)

So...the rumors I hear about Voldemort building a Fortress of Conclusion on the Negative Energy Plane and casting a spell to gain control over all the world's undead...true or not?

(The best part about that is that I can *almost* make the narrative work on that)

Brad


----------



## ThirdWizard (Jul 20, 2007)

cignus_pfaccari said:
			
		

> So...the rumors I hear about Voldemort building a Fortress of Conclusion on the Negative Energy Plane and casting a spell to gain control over all the world's undead...true or not?
> 
> (The best part about that is that I can *almost* make the narrative work on that)




Voldermort = Acererak ?


----------



## Olgar Shiverstone (Jul 20, 2007)

ThirdWizard said:
			
		

> Voldermort = Acererak ?




LOL.  Book VIII: _Harry Potter and the Tomb of Horrors_.

Ron sticks his head in the black hole ...


----------



## cignus_pfaccari (Jul 20, 2007)

Olgar Shiverstone said:
			
		

> LOL.  Book VIII: _Harry Potter and the Tomb of Horrors_.
> 
> Ron sticks his head in the black hole ...




Yep, that's what I was going for.  Actually, a friend came up with it.

Brad


----------



## RigaMortus2 (Jul 21, 2007)

These are the people I heard who are dying in HP7:

Ron Weasly
Snape
Voldemort


----------



## Relique du Madde (Jul 21, 2007)

The ending has been posted on wikipedia...


----------



## kingpaul (Jul 21, 2007)

Well, I got home from Borders about 2 and just finished the book about 10 minutes ago. Definitely a quick read. I'm going to bed soon, and will post more thoughts later.


----------



## thatdarncat (Jul 21, 2007)

I finished about an hour ago.... very good. More thoughts after some sleep and a more leisurely read through.


----------



## Steel_Wind (Jul 21, 2007)

SPOILER HERE.

A continuity question has been bugging me. I probably read so fast I missed it.



Spoiler



Continuity Question: I thought the goblin took the Sword of Griffindor during the robbery and escape from Gringott's.  How does it end back up in the Sorting Hat for Neville to use?


----------



## kingpaul (Jul 21, 2007)

Steel_Wind said:
			
		

> SPOILER HERE.
> 
> A continuity question has been bugging me. I probably read so fast I missed it.
> 
> ...



My guess is that 



Spoiler



its because of the magic of the Sorting Hat. Neville needed a sword to kill Nagini, and that's the one the Sorting Hat knew about, since it belonged to a founder.


----------



## jhallum (Jul 21, 2007)

Steel_Wind said:
			
		

> SPOILER HERE.
> 
> A continuity question has been bugging me. I probably read so fast I missed it.
> 
> ...





I'm surprised so many people are missing this.  (So did I, my wife told me about it).  Highlight below to reveal...


Spoiler



It was established way back in Chamber of Secrets that the sword will come to a Griffindor in need. (And having the Sorting Hat nearby appears to help), and when Neville needed something to destroy the last Horcrux, there was the sword, in hand for him.


----------



## drothgery (Jul 22, 2007)

RigaMortus2 said:
			
		

> These are the people I heard who are dying in HP7:
> 
> Ron Weasly
> Snape
> Voldemort




Having just finished reading it...
[sblock]
Snape and Voldermort die. Fred dies. Mad-Eye Moody dies. A bunch of more minor characters die. For a while there it seems like Harry's _going_ to die. But Harry, Ron, and Hermione live.
[/sblock]


----------



## Olgar Shiverstone (Jul 22, 2007)

Just finished reading, after the book arrived from Amazon at 4.  Good read, and a worthy successor and ending to the series.  Lots of exciting scenes, 



Spoiler



even if there is a bit too much time wasted mooning about the woods for 1/3 the book


.  Glad to see at least one of the pre-released "hacker" spoilers was completely off base.

To Steel Wind's question:

[sblock]In Chamber of Secrets, it's clearly established the sword comes when needed, and appears in the Sorting Hat.  For some reason, I seem to recall hearing the hat was originally Gryffindor's ... but not sure where.  That would certainly help explain it.[/sblock]

As to deaths:

[sblock]
Massive body count in this book -- they'll have fun keeping the violence in check for the movie.  Voldemort (obviously), Snape, Bellatrix, Fred, Remus Lupin, Tonks, Mad-Eye Moody, Scrimgeor, Wormtail, Colin Creavy, Dobby, Hedwig, Crabbe, plus lots more Death Eaters and Hogwarts red shirts ...

Harry (sort of), but then not ...

George loses an ear.

Draco doesn't get it, little git.[/sblock]

As to the ending:

[sblock]
I think all thosse who predicted Harry as being the seventh Horcrux were justly rewarded.  The series had been building to this for some time.  And I'm glad the mystery of Snape has finally been resolved to (reasonable) satisfaction.  Wish the epilogue had had an update on Luna, though ...[/sblock]

Still, some mysteries not resolved:

[sblock]
- Where do ghosts come from (though the background on the Ravenclaw & Slytherin ghosts was interesting)?
- How do the pictures of headmasters retain sentience?  Dumbledore was still guiding Snape after his death.
- What kind of critter is Crookshanks, anyway? JKR has said he's not a normal cat, but he's not an animagus, either ...
- The last word wasn't "scar".  Wonder what happened?
- The female house elf Dobby helped (name escapes me) ... no sign.
- Who becomes the next Hogwarts headmaster?
- Probably a number of other loose ends I missed, too.[/sblock]


----------



## Donovan Morningfire (Jul 22, 2007)

Just finished reading...

And absolutely loved it.  Only put the book down once to scrounge up some food somewhere in the 500's.

Guess I have to eat my words on Harry not being an accidental Horcrux, since that's exactly what he ended up being.

As for Olgar's unanswered questions...
-> Nick pretty much explained where ghosts come from in OotP, witn Snape expounding on the topic in HBP.
-> Crookshanks is part cat and part some other magical beastie, Kneazle I think.  Rowling put the answer to that up on her website.
-> As for the last word, she said some time ago it had gotten changed from scar.  But it was in the last sentence.
-> Winky was probably sleeping off another butterbeer binge.  But with Kreacher leading the charge, I find myself asking... who cares?
-> I'd imagine McGonagall would get the job; she's the logical choice, since Snape only got the post due to Voldemort's meddling.

And it would have been nice to see a where Luna ended up nineteen years later.  But at least Harry got rewarded for a childhood of sacrifice and trouble.  After all, he'd already had a lifetime's worth of trouble before he'd even graduated.


----------



## drothgery (Jul 22, 2007)

Donovan Morningfire said:
			
		

> Just finished reading...
> 
> And absolutely loved it.  Only put the book down once to scrounge up some food somewhere in the 500's.
> 
> Guess I have to eat my words on Harry not being an accidental Horcrux, since that's exactly what he ended up being.




It bugs me that every cheesy internet theory seemed to be true...

[sblock]
Harry was a horocrux.
Snape was actually okay, and had a thing for Lily.
Harry ended up with Ginny.
Hermione ended up with Ron.
[/sblock]

... but it still turned out to be a pretty good book. Add to the list of unanswered questions, though -- did you notice that except for Neville, the '19 years later' section doesn't mention what any of the (now grown-up) kids do for a living.

McGonagall probably was headmaster for a while, but it doesn't seem likely she still was by the epilogue; she's not that much younger than Dumbledore.


----------



## The Grumpy Celt (Jul 22, 2007)

More characters (Hagrid, Percy, Neville and McGonagall for example) should have died... but then I always think that.

The government had to have been in shambles after the story.

If it was said, then I missed it, but I wonder if Harry did become an Auror.


----------



## Digital M@ (Jul 22, 2007)

Spoiers ahead

I thought it was OK. Many things in the story bothered me.  Personally, Hemione played too bg of a role, she did everything in the first 3/4 of the books.  Ron and Harry night as well have been monkies picking bugs from each others fur.  Harry did not practice improving his spell casting abilities, silent casting or anything to better prepare himself for the conflict he knew was coming.  I fugured rage and fear would have been motivation enough.

We read the same backround information about Dumbledore 4 times in the book, each time with a different flair, but really it was all the same info and IMO was not that interesting.  What bothered me the most is that is brought angry brooding Harry back.

There was lots of conflict, but not enough suspence, but that may be because I read the book in one sitting.  I will re-ead it in a month or so over a lnger period of time and I may digest it differently.

I was also bothered by Harry ending up unconcious after each combat sequence, it became overused and predictable.  The accidental Horcrux was a really bad story line (IMO), I just did not want to see it in  the story, I did not feel it was going to add any dimension to the characters or the book and it seemed forced.  I also did not understand why Harry toght he could not share info on the Horcrux once V knew Harry was destroying them.  That annoyed me.  The sword in the hat was annoying only because the Goblin tanking the sword was such a big deal.  Harry had conversation about deals with Goblins, the 3 main characters discussed it, the goblin betrays Harry before harry can betray him.  In the end none of that made any difference and it did not make for a richer story.

Overall the book did not flow as well as some of the others, characters seemed kind of flat, and I was not immersed into the non acion story like I was in HBP.

Honestly, the pace and direction of the book went a much different direction than I thought and that could be coloring my opinion.  I did like how the sequence at Hogwarts went.  I like the buildup of supporters, the multi-faceted battle, V's understanding and exploitation of Harry's weaknesses.  Albus's brother was a great new character, the mystery of where help was coming was well done, Severus's back story was good, but I would of liked to see him have a more active/sacradicial death, he was such a good character, I mean you knew he was a good guy but you still hated him, but liked him deep down inside.


----------



## kingpaul (Jul 22, 2007)

drothgery said:
			
		

> Add to the list of unanswered questions, though -- did you notice that except for Neville, the '19 years later' section doesn't mention what any of the (now grown-up) kids do for a living.



That did irk me when I read the epilogue.


----------



## Steel_Wind (Jul 22, 2007)

The Grumpy Celt said:
			
		

> If it was said, then I missed it, but I wonder if Harry did become an Auror.




Response below 



Spoiler



It didn't say. I would wonder why he would want to be one by that point, honestly.  After all, he's the Great Harry Potter, ArchWizard by that point. He's got nothing left to prove. Besides, working for the Ministry in such a direct way would have bothered him I think. 

Also, wouldn't he be sick to death of the idea with so many friends lost to the war?

I would have thought his real calling was shown in OOTP - to be Hogwarts' Defence against the Dark Arts teacher. It was clearly what he was best at - and there is no arguing that not only was he a natural at the subject - but above all he was also a natural teacher.  

Moreover, that way (and unlike Voldemort) - HP could have grown up and stayed to live at Hogwarts. It was, after all, his home.


----------



## kingpaul (Jul 22, 2007)

Steel_Wind said:
			
		

> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> After all, he's the Great Harry Potter, ArchWizard by that point. He's got nothing left to prove.



Maybe 



Spoiler



because he has nothing left to prove he wants to live in "retirement". He has enough gold from the Potters and the Blacks to be able to not work.


----------



## drothgery (Jul 22, 2007)

Things that may interest only me: Seeing Lily and James' gravestones with 1960-1981 on them, and seeing that Harry had his first birthday in the company of his parents, pretty firmly establishes the 'real world' timeline of the story.

It means that the main timeline of the story ended in 1998 (and Harry was born in July of 1980).
The '50 years ago' flashbacks in earlier books were set during or just after WWII (and if spillover from the Muggle Europe of the 1930s and 1940s didn't have a lot to do with Dubmledore's attitude adjustment I'd be shocked).


----------



## Donovan Morningfire (Jul 22, 2007)

drothgery said:
			
		

> It bugs me that every cheesy internet theory seemed to be true...
> 
> [sblock]
> Harry was a horocrux.
> ...



Looking back at the books overall, Rowling actually left plenty of clues that each of those were the case.  The hook-ups mentioned in the books were fairly obvious, especially the last set, which I think you'd have to be half-blind to not see it coming.

As for the Half-Blood Prince, it does vindicate that Dumbledore knew what he was doing, and further explained why Snape was so biased towards Harry.  After all, how painful would you find it if the eyes of someone you loved were looking at you from the face of someone you despised?

For Harry = Horcrux, seems the internet theory was only half-right, since they said that Harry would have to end up dead as a doornail and that someone else (often Neville) would have to carry on the fight.




> ... but it still turned out to be a pretty good book. Add to the list of unanswered questions, though -- did you notice that except for Neville, the '19 years later' section doesn't mention what any of the (now grown-up) kids do for a living.
> 
> McGonagall probably was headmaster for a while, but it doesn't seem likely she still was by the epilogue; she's not that much younger than Dumbledore.



According to Rowling, McGonagall was a "spritely" 80-something, and that wizards live much longer than Muggles.  Dumbledore was over 150 and still very active and able, with Aberforth only a few years behind.  So it's quite possible that she could still be Hogwart's Headmistress when the new batch of Potter kids were going to Hogwarts.

As for jobs, I agree with kingpaul in that Harry, much like his father, didn't need to work given the vast amount of money in his vault.  Besides, he only wanted to become an Auror so that he'd have a better shot at defeating Voldemort.  With that out of the way, and given his changed attitude towards the Ministry in general, it was no longer an attractive career path.


----------



## Donovan Morningfire (Jul 22, 2007)

The Grumpy Celt said:
			
		

> More characters (Hagrid, Percy, Neville and McGonagall for example) should have died... but then I always think that.



Seems funny that just about everyone was predicting Hagrid's death, but he managed to survive it all.  Makes me curious if Rowling will ever comment on who got the reprieve and who the two additional deaths were...[/QUOTE]



> The government had to have been in shambles after the story.



Given how we're shown it operates, maybe tearing it down and starting over wasn't such a bad thing.  I'm sure Kingsley had some pretty good ideas for improvements.  And if Harry, now the true darling of the Wizarding World, was willing to support the man publicly, then Kingsley would have little trouble getting the Ministry in order.  Seems Dumbledore made a very good guess about the people best suited for positions of power and leadership are the ones that don't go seeking it


----------



## RigaMortus2 (Jul 22, 2007)

Never read the books, but is it ever explained why the Defense Against the Dark Arts teachers always turn up to be bad guys?  Or why there is always a new one each year?  Is there some reason behind it?

I also thought Harry would end up being the new (permanent) DAtDA teacher after he graduated.


----------



## Shalimar (Jul 22, 2007)

RigaMortus2 said:
			
		

> Never read the books, but is it ever explained why the Defense Against the Dark Arts teachers always turn up to be bad guys?  Or why there is always a new one each year?  Is there some reason behind it?
> 
> I also thought Harry would end up being the new (permanent) DAtDA teacher after he graduated.




That was semi-explained in book 6, but they didn't ever give the actual mechanics.  Just that ever since Dumbledore turned down Voldemort that no one ever lasted more than a year.  We are left to assume that its just a string of unfortunate events possibly helped along by a curse.  The curse is just conjecture though.


----------



## kingpaul (Jul 22, 2007)

RigaMortus2 said:
			
		

> Never read the books, but is it ever explained why the Defense Against the Dark Arts teachers always turn up to be bad guys?



They weren't all bad guys. Lupin was a good guy.


			
				RigaMortus2 said:
			
		

> Or why there is always a new one each year?  Is there some reason behind it?



As Shalimar said, Dumbledore told Harry that after Voldemort was refused the post, they haven't been able to keep a teacher for more than a year. But I'm pretty sure Dumbledore said that Voldemort *did* place a curse. I'm going to have to dig through HBP to find that conversation now.


			
				RigaMortus2 said:
			
		

> I also thought Harry would end up being the new (permanent) DAtDA teacher after he graduated.



That's something that I had assumed as well before reading the last book.


----------



## Vocenoctum (Jul 22, 2007)

Seriously, do we need spoiler tags when the whole thread is going to discuss the books? Let alone using blackout and the spoiler box interchangeably?I mean hell, how are you even supposed to know how much of a spoiler it is without clicking it, since no one ever gives a non-spoiler frame of reference.


I liked the book as a finale, but it doesn't really stand on it's own much. It focused on the trio a bit too much for my taste, as they're wandering around camping out. I'd have preferred seeing some of the other ordeals going on. (I'd suspect a "sideline" book, but it's been widely said the series ends, so blah)

It was sort of amusing when Vold dies and everyone just kind of congratulates each other and goes about their business, I guess the other death eaters just disappeared right away. 

Too many times, you got to read a long passage explaining details, but they weren't all accurate details. You also got stories about things, rather than the character discovering details.

Overall, I think this book was written with a movie in mind, plenty of action scene's, plot exposition in simple blocks, trimmable camping.

The 19 year scene, at the least, reveals that Potter and group don't end up at the school. I didn't care for the Harry/ Ron split (what, is it required in every book?) and didn't like bringing Umbridge back.

I do think it did a good job of filling in all the details of the plot, even if it didn't go a lot more forward and explain more in the "19 years passed" thing. (well, except that it was a few years before any of them had kids, I suppose. I'd have figured they'd start um.. "working on" that right way...)


----------



## Shalimar (Jul 22, 2007)

I would figure that Harry, Hermione, and Ron would actually go back to Hogwarts the next year and finish out their Schooling.  I mean Harry loves Hogwarts, and Hermione loves learning, and Ron loves Hermione.  After they graduated with their NEWTS (with Ginny) I'd just assume that they did the usual young wizard/witch thing for a couple of years before settling down and starting their families.


----------



## Ace32 (Jul 22, 2007)

*** This whole post is a potential  spoiler ***

Well, I just finished off my copy of the book. 

To be honest, I was a bit disappointed. Once again, Rowling proves that she is quite capable of coming up with an extremely detailed world and complex characters - but she is utterly unable to make them likable. It seemed every single character had some sort of pressing flaw that made them whiny, emotional, and angst-ridden. I understand that the horcrux, the rising death toll, and other factors could explain these feelings - but were they even needed in the first place? After the distasteful moaning Harry and gang had in book 5, I would've been fine with a number of them getting the axe. Instead, we are given another round of Harry-Ron fighting, more pining about not knowing things, and entirely wasted chapters about camping and discussions about where horcruxes were that led nowhere. To add insult to injury, she then adds other characters to the list of shady and less than heroic types... including Dumbledore. 

As for the plot itself, one could tell that she was rushing to wrap up 6 books worth of storylines. I imagine some of these revelations could've been put into other books simply to save space for this one. Percy's return is noble, but rather short. Dobby appears for almost as many pages as it takes for Harry to dig his grave and hold his funeral. Snape's ultimate sacrifice is forced, short, and ultimately pointless - he serves as Dumbledore's post-it note. Remus and Tonks make a few brief appearances and then get offed to serve as some sort of parallel to Harry's parents - ironic, considering Harry attempted to spare little Teddy that fate earlier in the book. In fact, the constant reappearance of formerly important characters in throwaway roles did little to make the book feel alive. If anything, it emphasized just how many strange coincidences were necessary for the whole plot to occur.

Then of course, there is the issue of Harry's survival as the 7th horcrux. Ok, I get that Harry needed to die for it to be destroyed... I suppose. But if it was so easy to just zap him, kill the Voldemort bit, and then let him wake up back - why did it need to be Voldy who did it? Either the two souls were one (meaning both should die) or they were not (meaning it could be seperated and destroyed somehow). To have Harry 'die', chill with Dumbledore a bit (in a dream, which was real, and apparently means Harry is strong with the force), and then return to heroicly 'disarm' Voldemort and ONCE AGAIN have him get attacked by his own magic seemed... rather pained. While I can understand that a bit of deus ex machina was necessary considering how powerful Rowling had made her villain (how could Voldy fly? did they ever address that?), this just seemed a bit much. At least give us the satisfaction of having Harry duel with Voldemort a bit before he was killed by accident for the upteenth time. 

Finally, the epilogue. Wow. That was the most pointless chapter I'd read in the whole book. For starters, it took a bit to realize who the hell all the children were - as all the names are tossed at you without any really description of their appearance or age. Then as other posters have mentioned, we are given a few brief teasers about the fate of a few characters, but the majority of the chapter is spent characterizing entirely new people who we will (theoretically, considering JKL's stance on future books) never meet again. No mention of what anybody is up to, who actually survived the final battle, and what happened to the government, the death eaters, or anybody else involved in the war. If she were leading into a new series of books, this would be a fitting conclusion. Considering she isn't, she just blew a load of worthless pages that could've been spent on actually concluding the characters' storyline.

All in all, I did actually like the book. I just felt like it suffered a bit under its own weight. To be honest, I've prefered the movie portrayals of the characters and the simplified plotlines a bit more, if only because they actually make the story feel somewhat heroic.

Edit: Struck the 'potential'


----------



## Steel_Wind (Jul 22, 2007)

kingpaul said:
			
		

> Maybe
> 
> 
> 
> ...




While that is true, I don't think people who turn 18 think "well - it's time to retire". 

An interesting point to this are the lives and career aspirations of  Daniel Radcliff, Rupert Grint and Emma Watson. By the end of the movie series, They should be 21, 20 and 19, yeas old, respectively.  All with substantial fortunes in the bank (Radcliff should be worth about $50 million alone).

Imagine that for a moment. 20 years old, the star of seven blockbuster movies, typecast probably forever and wealthy beyond the dreams of 99.99%  of the population. You are 20 years old and it's over.

Wow. Pretty remarkable when you stop and think about it.

But Radcliff and Grint both want to work as actors. "Retirement" is never entertained by either of them. It does seem that Emma Watson, who is as bookish in life as Hermione is in the series, wants to go to university and leave acting behind her.

But "retire" as such? No.  Being a well-funded slacker and "retirement" are not the same things. It's not the age for such goals.


----------



## drothgery (Jul 22, 2007)

Ace32 said:
			
		

> *** This whole post is a potential  spoiler ***
> 
> Percy's return is noble, but rather short.




This is the one thing that kind of bugged me (the short part, that is). I always expected Percy back, but I was figuring we'd get a bit of explanation that Percy's rift with his family was always something of a sham, and he'd been the Order's inside man with the Ministry (until the Thiksennse coup made that pointless).


----------



## Piratecat (Jul 22, 2007)

Ace32 said:
			
		

> Well, I just finished off my copy of the book.
> 
> To be honest, I was a bit disappointed.



Huh. I disagree with most of your points; I think my reading experience was very different from yours.

I need to chew on it a bit longer before analyzing it, though.


----------



## Crothian (Jul 22, 2007)

I really enjoyed it.  I thought the characters rang true.  There was a lot going on and I think she handled it quite well with the brief look at so many different characters but I really got a feel for what they had been up to.


----------



## Kid Charlemagne (Jul 22, 2007)

I just finished the book and found it to be immensely satisfying.  I liked the postscript, I liked how Rowling tied up the Harry/Horcrux thing, and I loved how Snape's story was resolved (and Harry's late-arriving respect).

"Would you like me to do it now, or would you like a few moments to compose an epitaph?"

That just might be the best line of the entire series.

I also think that Neville's retrieval of the sword is perfectly explained by the reasons given above by a couple posters.


----------



## Vocenoctum (Jul 22, 2007)

Ace32 said:
			
		

> Percy's return is noble, but rather short.



Percy's return was meaningless to me.



> Dobby appears for almost as many pages as it takes for Harry to dig his grave and hold his funeral.



Dobby's death was well done I think, certainly it at the least had the ring of being "fully told".



> Snape's ultimate sacrifice is forced, short, and ultimately pointless - he serves as Dumbledore's post-it note.



This was really the biggest "plot" problem I had. If Snape had been Killing Cursed, then Harry would never know? It was just a strange accident of fate that put Snape in the position to die slowly. The "memory" extraction was one of the scene's in the book (like Nagini attacking Potter) where the writing didn't paint a very good image for me, and I didn't immediately grasp what was happening.



> Remus and Tonks make a few brief appearances and then get offed to serve as some sort of parallel to Harry's parents - ironic, considering Harry attempted to spare little Teddy that fate earlier in the book.



Their deaths were off-screen, and not very invested. At first when I read it, I thought they actually MIGHT be sleeping or something. 

The thing is, I didn't like it, because immediately after Harry finds out they're dead and his Godson has no parents, he then must go die. It wasn't raised in the text or anything, so oh well.




> Then of course, there is the issue of Harry's survival as the 7th horcrux. Ok, I get that Harry needed to die for it to be destroyed... I suppose. But if it was so easy to just zap him, kill the Voldemort bit, and then let him wake up back - why did it need to be Voldy who did it?



I'm not sure I can explain it, but I do understand it, in some way. Maybe it's because the Killing Curse tears your soul, or because of the special link between them, or any number of things, but it made sense to me that Vold had to deal the strike that would kill that portion of Harry that was his soul.




> (how could Voldy fly? did they ever address that?),



It was hilarious to me, because the Order makes a point of saying that he can fly, and it's obviously something unusual.

Meanwhile, in Movie 5, by all appearances, every death eater there was flying.



> this just seemed a bit much. At least give us the satisfaction of having Harry duel with Voldemort a bit before he was killed by accident for the umpteenth time.



It worked for me, because their duel was not about raw power or magical talent. It was about the quirks of fate that led to Vold's fall, with Harry as the central figure.



> Finally, the epilogue.



It certainly could have and should have been done better, but it was fine for what it was.

It did fail in updating the world, and did anyone doubt that at that point Harry/Ginny and Hermione/ Ron would be together?

More would have been served by updating others, especially Luna, but I guess it didn't work out that way.



> All in all, I did actually like the book. I just felt like it suffered a bit under its own weight. To be honest, I've prefered the movie portrayals of the characters and the simplified plotlines a bit more, if only because they actually make the story feel somewhat heroic.




Like I said, I think this book was made with the movies in mind. A lot of stuff will be trimmed and whatnot, and I'm sure the epilogue will look better on camera than the description gives.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Jul 22, 2007)

I thought it was a very strong ending to the series. I liked that JKR started killing off characters very early on, beginning with one I wouldn't have even thought to have killed -- and doing so in a way that emphasizes that this really is childhood's end -- and kept on going.

I have one quibble:
[sblock=The Room of Requirement]Why would Voldemort believe no one had ever found the Lost Items version of the room when it was filled to the brim with other people's stuff?[/sblock]

Other than that, I found it very well plotted, and I especially like the obvious-in-retrospect key to Snape's character.

The epilogue was a little cheesy, but she wrote the last line of the book years ago, before she had matured as a writer. She wanted to use it, so she had to have an epilogue. Given how much WASN'T in the epilogue, I'd say she restrained herself quite a bit. Other than two romantic questions being answered, it didn't really tell us that much.

Given that she's the richest woman in Britain by a large margin, I don't think we'll see any more wizarding books until she's good and ready. (Maybe in time for her grandchildren to read them.) I suspect she's going to do a Richard Bachman number and start writing something very different, just for the hell of it, though.


----------



## Tiberius (Jul 22, 2007)

Obviously by this point, spoilers.





I would tend to doubt that Harry went into being an Auror, but for a different reason than the fact of Voldemort's defeat. Aurors could reasonably expect to get into a lot of fights over the course of their career. Harry wanted the power of the Elder Wand to die with him, once his time is up. If he is ever defeated in combat, the ownership of the wand passes, apparently, to the victor. Thus, if he was so much as Disarmed even once over the remaining course of his life, the wand's power would remain unbroken. He's much more likely to stay out of duels if he's enjoying a quiet life with Ginny than if he's on the front lines of Dark wizard catching.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Jul 22, 2007)

Oh, and JKR has answered the Crookshanks answer in a book, just not the novels. She wrote two small Hogwarts textbooks for the (British) Comic Relief charity and the magical cat-thing that Crookshanks is apparently one of is detailed in one of them.

For shame, false Potter fans, for not owning all JKR's wizard books!


----------



## blargney the second (Jul 22, 2007)

Whizbang Dustyboots said:
			
		

> I have one quibble: Why would Voldemort believe no one had ever found the Lost Items version of the Room of Requirement when it was filled to the brim with other people's stuff?



Answer: hubris.  Riddle had no shortage of it.

I really enjoyed Deathly Hallows.  It made many of the unexplained inconsistencies in previous books make much more sense.  Here are some things that stood out to me as interesting:

1) When Harry left Privet Drive and particularly when Hedwig was killed, I thought, "Ooo, he's starting the Hero's Journey.  This is going to be a good one."  It became clear that the entire rest of the series was setup for a very solid Joseph Campbell story in the final book.  Rowling executed some excellent variations along the way.

2) The widespread terror that Voldemort's regime caused was impressively implemented.  When confronted with fear beyond what they'd ever experienced, people buckled in their strongest opinions.  Xeno Lovegood was awesome.

3) I loved that Dumbledore was human.  He made mistakes along the way, and sought to make reparations afterward when he felt contrition.  Prior to reading the book, I was convinced he was going to come back from the dead.  Phoenix and all that.  I was glad to be wrong.

4) My understanding of the last fight with Voldemort was that the Elder Wand knew who its true master was: Harry.  He'd destroyed so many of Voldemort's Horcruxes that he'd irreparably damaged V's soul.  When Voldemort killed him, Harry actually won that duel because Voldemort did more harm to himself than to his enemy.

5) I don't think Draco was a bad guy.  I was happy that Harry showed him clemency.

Damn fine book.
-blarg


----------



## blargney the second (Jul 22, 2007)

Oh yeah, and Molly Weasley vs Bellatrix?  That was boss.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Jul 23, 2007)

blargney the second said:
			
		

> Oh yeah, and Molly Weasley vs Bellatrix?  That was boss.



That was hardcore, as was Narcissa Malfoy turning out to be a mother first, and a Neutral Evil bitch on wheels second. I honestly believe this is a series that only a parent could have written the way it turned out.

I also think she did a great job with her faux Nazis and made the people who knuckled under to the regime more pitiable than despicable, while still not negating the evil they were helping as a result. Mr. Lovegood was a much more complex character than can be found in any of the Potter-wannabes that have sprung up since this series first debuted.


----------



## Steel_Wind (Jul 23, 2007)

Tiberius said:
			
		

> Obviously by this point, spoilers.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Good point. While there is nothing to prove/disprove this theory and won't be for a very long time - if ever - it's not a bad bit of reasoning  at all.


----------



## Olgar Shiverstone (Jul 23, 2007)

blargney the second said:
			
		

> Oh yeah, and Molly Weasley vs Bellatrix?  That was boss.




Definitely a line that will get cheers from the audience when it is made into a movie!


----------



## Loincloth of Armour (Jul 23, 2007)

Spoilers... (for those who are still worried about such things)....


I liked the fact that Dumbledore was shown to be less of a 'living angel' and more of a real person who had made some dumb-a$$ choices in his life.  One thing Rowling has shown is that people change.

Dumbledore went from a pro-wizard supremacist to a supporting of muggle rights.

Snape went from Death Eater to the most important member of the Order.

Draco went from stereotypical antagonist to guy who realizes he's in over his head and this isn't what he wants.

Narcissa went from a cold-hearted cow to a woman who realized her choices could cost her the life of her only son.

And James Potter went from a stuck-up, pompous, horrible _toerag_ of a jerk to someone who  could form a loving relationship with a genuinely kind human being.


Does explain Dumbledore's tendency to give people second chances.  

For the book itself, for the most part I liked it.  I do believe that Rowling (like quite a number of authors) has difficulty ending stories.   As this book was the wrap-up of the whole thing I kept reading it thinking, "How is she going to wrap it up in 300 pages?"  Then, "How can she possibly bring everything together in 200 pages?" and followed by "She's got 100 pages to solve all the problems?!  HOW?!"  Not sure the ending worked for me (and I'm not really fond of the epilogue), but I took away many years of joyful reading from the series so can forgive slight flaws.  She was writing the book for herself (and as one other poster mentioned, had this ending in mind for over a decade from when she was a less experienced writer), so I'm happy for the journey I've been on.

The whole 'Deathly Hallows' angle didn't work for me.  Bringing such important new things into the story so late in the game felt forced.  My personal feelings are that focusing on the Horcruxes story-line exclusively would have been stronger.  Or may if the Hallows had been mentioned in a previous book.

Oh, and did anyone else get the, "man, with how sly and corrupting it is, that locket must be made out of the remains of the One Ring," vibe I did?

I will say that the spots of humor in the first 1/2 of the book made me laugh out loud.  I certainly wasn't expecting them in this book of death and sacrifice, so I really had a hoot.

I publicly admit I thought Ron was on the short-list to getting killed.  (Sidekick dies, motivates the hero and all that.)  When he walked out, I experienced my first real fear as I realized, "Wait... Ron's not there anymore.  That means the dramatic sacrifice will be... Hermione."

Glad to see it didn't happen (she's my favourite character), but nothing, and I mean *nothing* would have made me doubt her chances of survival except for Ron's walk.


----------



## kingpaul (Jul 23, 2007)

I liked how Kreacher's character evolved...especially leading the House Elf charge in the final battle.


----------



## Ace32 (Jul 23, 2007)

kingpaul said:
			
		

> I liked how Kreacher's character evolved...especially leading the House Elf charge in the final battle.




I wholeheartedly agree here. Kreacher's character fit in with the whole house elf subplot that we've seen throughout many of the books. It also tied a loose end into the story quite nicely without feeling forced and nicely complemented the whole business with R.A.B., the locket (which I also saw a whole lot of the 'one ring' in), and the horcruxes.


----------



## nobodez (Jul 23, 2007)

I can't believe I'm the only one that sees this.

The Epilogue is titles "19 years later", yet, Ted, who was born in 1998, would be 19 years old, two years too old to be snogging Victoire in the back of the train.

IF it was 16 years later, I could understand, even 17 years later, with Ted coming to Hogwarts a bit later, but not 19, that's just too old for Ted to be on the Train and still attending Hogwarts.

But, aside from that, I'm glad that Snape was vindicated, I'm sad that the characters were too stupid to see what was right in front of them most of the time, and I'm really tempted to get a tattoo that can be described as thus:


> An equilateral triangle, with an inscribed circle, bisected by a vertical line.



At least, I think that's the right description.

Yep, just checked Chapter 21, and that's the one. It would have been nice for JK to describe the symbol like that, rather than just having a vague description of a "symbol".


----------



## Tiberius (Jul 23, 2007)

nobodez said:
			
		

> I can't believe I'm the only one that sees this.
> 
> The Epilogue is titles "19 years later", yet, Ted, who was born in 1998, would be 19 years old, two years too old to be snogging Victoire in the back of the train.
> 
> IF it was 16 years later, I could understand, even 17 years later, with Ted coming to Hogwarts a bit later, but not 19, that's just too old for Ted to be on the Train and still attending Hogwarts.




Ted had agreed to come see her off. He wasn't there to go to Hogwarts.



			
				James Potter II said:
			
		

> -- and he said he'd come to see her off! And then he told me to go away! He's *snogging* her!


----------



## Vocenoctum (Jul 23, 2007)

Whizbang Dustyboots said:
			
		

> That was hardcore,




See, I've never been a fan of the "one at a time" approach to battle, and I'd have been happier had they ganged up on her, or more appropriately Neville, his grandmother, or Hermoine had taken Bellatrix out.



> as was Narcissa Malfoy turning out to be a mother first, and a Neutral Evil bitch on wheels second. I honestly believe this is a series that only a parent could have written the way it turned out.




I think the Malfoys on the whole were the flip side of below. They were the spiteful supporters of an evil regime, that suddenly realized that their repeatedly precarious position was detrimental to their family. I think the fact they served through fear instead of loyalty was a great touch. Giving Narcissa a good reason for betraying was a good move.



> I also think she did a great job with her faux Nazis and made the people who knuckled under to the regime more pitiable than despicable, while still not negating the evil they were helping as a result. Mr. Lovegood was a much more complex character than can be found in any of the Potter-wannabes that have sprung up since this series first debuted.




Other than the press gangs and the werewolf, I agree. Grayback reeked of "orc sargeant" and his orc followers, out to get young wizards. Not an impossible thing by any means, but it somehow lacked in the narrative. Even the hardcore deatheaters like Bellatrix had that great element of "nutcase" but still somehow developed.


----------



## Fate Lawson (Jul 23, 2007)

Never mind. Beaten to the punch.


----------



## Vocenoctum (Jul 23, 2007)

Whizbang Dustyboots said:
			
		

> The Room of Requirement]Why would Voldemort believe no one had ever found the Lost Items version of the room when it was filled to the brim with other people's stuff?




The Chamber of Secrets certainly would seem to be a better hiding place, complete with a guardian. Sure, he'd know Harry had found it, but I mean, he had to have known of Draco's plot in book6 and known that it had been discovered.

Perhaps he didn't think anyone would get the significance, or perhaps he assumed the Room of Requirement would protect the item in there.

Or, heck, maybe he just meant to hide it from Dumbledore.

The powers of the room are sort of in flux. He wanted a room to keep it safe, and the room gave him a hiding place. But, what good is a hiding place that's communal? Heck, if Harry had sought the room, requiring the Horcrux, would the room have just coughed it up without the search?


----------



## Vocenoctum (Jul 23, 2007)

Whizbang Dustyboots said:
			
		

> Given that she's the richest woman in Britain by a large margin, I don't think we'll see any more wizarding books until she's good and ready. (Maybe in time for her grandchildren to read them.) I suspect she's going to do a Richard Bachman number and start writing something very different, just for the hell of it, though.




I believe she has publicly and repeatedly said she'll move on to something totally different. The Harry Potter series ends here. (though, there is talk of another charity book, like Quidditch and the animal guide)


----------



## Snapdragyn (Jul 23, 2007)

Re: Daniel Radcliffe:



> typecast probably forever....




I think him appearing nude on stage in "Equus" is a pretty strong opening move to counter that.

Completely unrelated, but he does turn 18 tomorrow according to imdb.com. *cough*


----------



## Ilium (Jul 23, 2007)

Vocenoctum said:
			
		

> The powers of the room are sort of in flux. He wanted a room to keep it safe, and the room gave him a hiding place. But, what good is a hiding place that's communal? Heck, if Harry had sought the room, requiring the Horcrux, would the room have just coughed it up without the search?




Remember the sequence in which Neville is praised for his ability to get the room to do what he wants.  Apparently you have to be something of a Rules Lawyer.  I wonder if Neville posts on EN World?


----------



## Flexor the Mighty! (Jul 23, 2007)

I really enjoyed it.  Glad to see Snape was redeemed and Dumbledore was not a total fool.   The battle at Hogwarts was awesome and should make a great movie part.  I'm so glad that the core trio survived too, I think she made a great choice in not having any of them killed off.  Sucks to see that Lupin and Tonks bought it, but it seemed like a brutal battle.  God a bit choked up when Fred died.  I really loved the Weasley twins and almost shed a single manly tear at that point...almost.   Neville kicking ass was great, him doing the snake was an awesome part.  

I thought the ending was fine, no need to see how Luna, and all the other minor characters were doing that far down the road. 

Just finished it about a half hour ago so I'm sure I'll have more thoughts later.  Its been awhile since I've read a book that fast, reminds me of when I would read 300 page novels in an afternoon when I was a kid.


----------



## blargney the second (Jul 23, 2007)

Loincloth of Armour said:
			
		

> The whole 'Deathly Hallows' angle didn't work for me.  Bringing such important new things into the story so late in the game felt forced.  My personal feelings are that focusing on the Horcruxes story-line exclusively would have been stronger.  Or may if the Hallows had been mentioned in a previous book.



Total opposite reaction for me.  I'd always wondered what the deal was with the cloak of invisibility.  Tying it to a wizarding fairy tale was a deft touch.

I also loved the part where Harry was forced to make a decision between pursuing the Horcruxes or the Hallows.  It was a great way to show his fundamental character, which is impressive after seven books.


----------



## Ambrus (Jul 23, 2007)

Just finished it. Overall I enjoyed it. There were definitely some edge-of-your-seat parts, such as the escape from the Malfoy mansion and the battle of Hogwarts. Although the endless camping scenes were slow, in a way I kind of liked them. They helped to reinforce the idea that isolation and utmost secrecy were important the characters' survival and to emphasize that finding the hoarcruxes with few clues was a frustrating and drawn out process.

I'm curious how many people figured out the plot twists before they occurred. I got a few myself (Ron and Hermione disappeared for awhile to go retrieve basilisk teeth from the chamber of secrets and that the diadem was the same one that Harry had coincidentally slapped onto a bust in the Room of Requirement). Still can't figure out how Voldermort could keep believing that no one else had ever stumbled into the room of requirement since it was clearly piled high with junk, or since Draco had found it and used it to lead an army of Death-Eaters into the school. Hm, I wonder if when he entered it, if it had showed itself to be empty to him because that's what _he_ needed to see...

Some twists I was anticipating however proved to be wrong; at first I was certain that Ravenclaw's diadem was in fact the door-knocker to the Ravenclaw common room (it sounded to be roughly the right size and shape, it had an eagle embossed on it, it imparted wisdom by asking riddles and Voldermort inexplicably had indicated that he wanted Ravenclaw tower under surveillance rather than the room of requirement).

The endless series of Snape memories also kind of had me wondering how he'd managed to organize so many thoughts and memories so effectively in the few seconds he'd had before he expired. I guess one's _whole life_ really does flash before one's eyes at the moment of death. 

And even if the sword of Gryffindor has been described as appearing for any Gryffindor in need, I do agree that having it suddenly pop out of the sorting hat for Neville did make the whole deal with the goblin turncoat rather pointless...

Lastly, did it seem odd that a wizard can cast mutliple charms simply by holding multiple wands simultaneously as Harry did in the Malfoy manor? Why doesn't every wizard simply walk around with a half dozen wands strapped to his forearms?


----------



## Victim (Jul 23, 2007)

Ambrus said:
			
		

> The endless series of Snape memories also kind of had me wondering how he'd managed to organize so many thoughts and memories so effectively in the few seconds he'd had before he expired. I guess one's _whole life_ really does flash before one's eyes at the moment of death.




I figured he had been keeping those memories in liquid form to make sure Voldemort, awesome mind reader, couldn't detect them.  So they'd be preorganized.


----------



## Berandor (Jul 23, 2007)

I enjoyed the book a lot, even though I didn't think it was perfect. The camping scenes were just there, imo, so that the book could cover more or less another year. There was too much exposition for my tastes crammed into the final chapters (Go to Voldemort at the Shrieking Shack – instead of battle, have chapter explaining Snape – go to Voldemort at the woods – instead of resolution, have another chapter, this time with Dumbledore); I'm not sure about a few decisions (such as how Voldemort leaves the room immediately after Snape is bitten, even before he's dead; or having Voldemort die by his own spell). I think the story would have been more powerful if Harry had died (see "Stranger than Fiction"), and the epilogue was unnecessary.

On the other hand, I really liked how Rowling filled her book with ambigious characters – the only straightforward one is Voldemort, really. Harry not wanting to believe in someone's claims, but wanting to know the truth for himself – great, as well as him then sticking to Dumbledore. The good guys using stupefy spells and binding spells instead of killing curses. Them saving even bad guys, like Malfoy and Doyle.

So I really liked the ideas behing everything, but in certain moments, I wasn't so sure whether the writing was up to it.

Still, I'd recommend the book.


----------



## Demmero (Jul 23, 2007)

Ambrus said:
			
		

> Still can't figure out how Voldermort could keep believing that no one else had ever stumbled into the room of requirement since it was clearly piled high with junk, or since Draco had found it and used it to lead an army of Death-Eaters into the school. Hm, I wonder if when he entered it, if it had showed itself to be empty to him because that's what _he_ needed to see...




I wondered the same thing, and I'm thinking that your guess hits the mark.  I had the same reaction regarding Draco initially, but somewhere in book 7 it states explicitly that Voldemort's plot to have Draco attempt to kill Dumbledore was mostly a punishment for his father's missteps in previous books, so it's very likely that the Dark Lord didn't follow Draco's progress closely, if at all.


----------



## Kid Charlemagne (Jul 23, 2007)

Ambrus said:
			
		

> And even if the sword of Gryffindor has been described as appearing for any Gryffindor in need, I do agree that having it suddenly pop out of the sorting hat for Neville did make the whole deal with the goblin turncoat rather pointless...




I don't think Harry really thought of that - and if even he did, he needed the sword for _right now_ and certainly couldn't count on pulling it out of the hat at any given time, I don't think - even assuming he could get to the hat at all, which could very well be the even stronger consideration.



			
				Ambrus said:
			
		

> Lastly, did it seem odd that a wizard can cast mutliple charms simply by holding multiple wands simultaneously as Harry did in the Malfoy manor? Why doesn't every wizard simply walk around with a half dozen wands strapped to his forearms?




I swear, my DM hat came on there as I thought that if I let one character get away with that, I'd be fighting off rules lawyers wanting to try it again and again....  

I also liked that the password to Snape's office was "Dumbledore" if I'm not mistaken.


----------



## Flexor the Mighty! (Jul 23, 2007)

Victim said:
			
		

> I figured he had been keeping those memories in liquid form to make sure Voldemort, awesome mind reader, couldn't detect them.  So they'd be preorganized.




Possibly.  But Snape was a master of Occlumency so he probably didn't need too, maybe those memories were so core to him they were always on the edge of his mind?


----------



## buzzard (Jul 23, 2007)

I finished the book yesterday morning. It was a quite quick read. I enjoyed it, though the camping stuff was overly drug out for my taste. As others have mentioned, this will likely help with a movie adaptation since that stuff can be chopped right off to no loss. 

One plot gripe which I haven't seen mentioned is why was Voldemort a moron? He knew who all the Order of the Phoenix people were, and where they lived. Why weren't they dead or at least in Azkahban? Voldemort wasn't exactly known for merciful tendencies. People were dropping like flies and mudbloods were all getting sent to Azkahban, and yet the core opposition is allowed to run free. That just didn't work for me. 

buzzard


----------



## wolff96 (Jul 23, 2007)

I have to say that I really enjoyed it and saw it as a fitting conclusion to the series.

I liked the bodycount -- there were several major conflicts throughout the storyline and it would have felt really odd not to see named characters getting dropped.  I was kind of amazed at how many threads from previous books got included and tied up here in the last book.

And does anyone else think that Snape mastered Occlumency precisely because 'opening his mouth when he should have kept it shut' is what cost him the love of his life?  Lily obviously cared -- a lot -- for Snape.  And yet, his inability to hold his tongue was the final nail in the coffin for that relationship.  (She hated his friends and such, but hadn't given up on him until he called her a 'mudblood'.)

And I really enjoyed the redemption of Kreacher.

Final thought:  Go Neville!  I would have liked to see him off Bellatrix for his parents, but he impressed his grandmother, led the resistance at Hogwarts all year in the face of some horrific punishments, organized the DA and ran the Room of Requirement, and even destroyed the final Horcrux.  Considering that he had no spine and very little talent throughout most of the books, I loved seeing him finally come into his own.


----------



## Desdichado (Jul 23, 2007)

Piratecat said:
			
		

> Huh. I disagree with most of your points; I think my reading experience was very different from yours.
> 
> I need to chew on it a bit longer before analyzing it, though.



Yup.  I had started re-reading the whole series (again) but got distracted by the release of _Monsternomicon 2_ so I was still in the middle of _Goblet of Fire_ when the new book came out.  I read it right away, of course, but now I'm back to my re-read and I'll cap it off by re-reading the last book to see how it all fits together.

For the most part, I really liked this book.  However, I think the ending needed to be a little bit more fleshed out.  We've been with these characters for many years and many books now, and I find them almost all likeable.  Given that, I think it was extremely disappointing that:

1.  The Harry/Ginny subplot is resolved off screen.  WTF?  That's been one of the major subplots for (at least) the last two books, and depending on how you count it, all the way from the beginning of the series.  Lame.  We needed to actually *see* some resolution there, not just find out from the epilogue that it was resolved.

2.  Fred's death was robbed of a lot of it's potential gravitas because there was no on-screen mourning to speak of.  Even Lupin's death meant more, which I thought was a little odd.  Fred was a more significant character in terms of screen time.

3.  Since the kids blew off their last year and I presume didn't take NEWTS, their career options are probably somewhat limited (although then again, folks like Dean and others who had their schooling interrupted are no doubt in the same boat.)  No doubt the ministry and new headmaster made some kind of accomodation, but I'd have liked to at least know what happened here.  And why is there never any talk of Harry becoming a professional Quidditch player?  He loves Quidditch; has said it over and over again, and is in the same league as the best players ever.  To me, a career path in the professional Quidditch circuit seems obvious, but it's never been mentioned.  Instead we get Auror and DADA teacher.  Hermione could probably ace her NEWTS even without having gone to school all year.


----------



## Desdichado (Jul 23, 2007)

nobodez said:
			
		

> I can't believe I'm the only one that sees this.
> 
> The Epilogue is titles "19 years later", yet, Ted, who was born in 1998, would be 19 years old, two years too old to be snogging Victoire in the back of the train.
> 
> IF it was 16 years later, I could understand, even 17 years later, with Ted coming to Hogwarts a bit later, but not 19, that's just too old for Ted to be on the Train and still attending Hogwarts.



He wasn't, he was saying goodbye.

We don't know how old Victoire is, since we don't know when she was born, but I'm guessing this is her last year and she's 17 (and no longer a minor.)  :shrug:


----------



## Wolfwood2 (Jul 23, 2007)

I really think the epilogue was just the right length.

Once you get past the big climax of a book (Voldemort's defeat), the story needs to end fast.  Dragging things on and on afterwards is usually pretty painful.  The epilogue tells us that Harry, Ron, and Hermione have been rewarded with peaceful lives and families and they're happy.

The exact details of Harry's courtship of Ginny, or what everybody ended up doing as a career, or even who is headmaster of Hogwarts don't really matter, because life goes on and there would always be more questions than answers.  Let the reader decide those things for themselves.


----------



## Ace32 (Jul 23, 2007)

Wolfwood2 said:
			
		

> Let the reader decide those things for themselves.




This just comes as a surprise considering how possessive JKL is over her characters. I suppose it does leave her room to expand where and when she chooses to. For example, a book on Hogwarts might mention Professor Longbottom, the future headmaster, and other such details.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Jul 23, 2007)

Ambrus said:
			
		

> And even if the sword of Gryffindor has been described as appearing for any Gryffindor in need, I do agree that having it suddenly pop out of the sorting hat for Neville did make the whole deal with the goblin turncoat rather pointless...



Harry was the first person to ever do that. I think it was assumed that Gryffindor was sufficiently impressed with him and his need to hand it over in Chamber of Secrets. Neville doing the same five years later, in an hour of even greater need, just goes to show how big a moment this was.

It's not popping out of the hat every time a Gryffindor needs to cut a cake.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Jul 23, 2007)

Hobo said:
			
		

> And why is there never any talk of Harry becoming a professional Quidditch player?  He loves Quidditch; has said it over and over again, and is in the same league as the best players ever.  To me, a career path in the professional Quidditch circuit seems obvious, but it's never been mentioned.  Instead we get Auror and DADA teacher.



It's never stated what happens to them. The Auror and DADA stuff are things that people guessed, but until the next charity books come out (and even after, if they don't cover famous wizards or anything), it's in the realm of fanfic. All we know is that Neville, arguably the second greatest wizarding hero of the modern age, goes onto be Professor of Herbology at Hogwarts.


----------



## Ambrus (Jul 23, 2007)

Whizbang Dustyboots said:
			
		

> It's not popping out of the hat every time a Gryffindor needs to cut a cake.



I'm not saying that the need wasn't present, it's simply that it popping out of the hat after it had been removed from school grounds and returned to a goblin by its wizard-wielder as part of an agreed upon deal seems rather odd to me. It kind of made the goblin's deal a rather moot point. :\


----------



## Ambrus (Jul 23, 2007)

Demmero said:
			
		

> I had the same reaction regarding Draco initially, but somewhere in book 7 it states explicitly that Voldemort's plot to have Draco attempt to kill Dumbledore was mostly a punishment for his father's missteps in previous books, so it's very likely that the Dark Lord didn't follow Draco's progress closely, if at all.



I can see your point, but after Draco did succeed, and Voldermort learnt of the successful Death-Eater surge through the Room of Requirement why wouldn't he, being the great mastermind he claims to be, take note that pretty much anyone present at Hogwarts during the attack was then after aware of the Room's existence? A little sidetrip following the attack for Voldermort to pick and move the diadem would have been advisable I'd think.

For that matter, why was Malfoy's cabinet still in the room a year after the attack when Harry entered it?!? Shouldn't it have likewise been moved, destroyed or at least secured somehow?


----------



## Ambrus (Jul 23, 2007)

nobodez said:
			
		

> and I'm really tempted to get a tattoo that can be described as thus:
> 
> At least, I think that's the right description.



The symbol actually appears on the top of the spine of the children's edition.


----------



## Loincloth of Armour (Jul 23, 2007)

Whizbang Dustyboots said:
			
		

> All we know is that Neville, arguably the second greatest wizarding hero of the modern age, goes onto be Professor of Herbology at Hogwarts.




[raised eyebrow]

Second greatest wizarding hero?  All he did was run (with help) a resistance in Hogwarts, and cut the head off a snake at the critical moment.  He showed he was a Gryffindor, true, but the second greatest is a bit much.

That title I think goes to the person who kept Harry *alive* for 7 years _despite_ his best efforts to get himself killed.  

And for accomplishing the even bigger task of getting the slackers Harry and Ron to _pass_ nearly all of their classes.  That, I think, had to be a struggle of mythic proportions.


----------



## Kid Charlemagne (Jul 23, 2007)

Loincloth of Armour said:
			
		

> [raised eyebrow]
> 
> Second greatest wizarding hero?  All he did was run (with help) a resistance in Hogwarts, and cut the head off a snake at the critical moment.  He showed he was a Gryffindor, true, but the second greatest is a bit much.
> 
> ...




Well, she's already got the title of "brightest witch of our age" or somesuch, so she's all set.  Ron's the one who's actually lacking in the title department.


----------



## Ilium (Jul 23, 2007)

Ambrus said:
			
		

> I can see your point, but after Draco did succeed, and Voldermort learnt of the successful Death-Eater surge through the Room of Requirement why wouldn't he, being the great mastermind he claims to be, take note that pretty much anyone present at Hogwarts during the attack was then after aware of the Room's existence? A little sidetrip following the attack for Voldermort to pick and move the diadem would have been advisable I'd think.
> 
> For that matter, why was Malfoy's cabinet still in the room a year after the attack when Harry entered it?!? Shouldn't it have likewise been moved, destroyed or at least secured somehow?



 A good question.  If it's still there, why haven't Death Eaters been using it to come and go from Hogwarts at will?  Isn't the other one still at Borgin and Burke's (or wherever they had it)?


----------



## Kid Charlemagne (Jul 23, 2007)

Ilium said:
			
		

> A good question.  If it's still there, why haven't Death Eaters been using it to come and go from Hogwarts at will?  Isn't the other one still at Borgin and Burke's (or wherever they had it)?




Well, because they could walk in the front door once Dumbledore was gone and Snape put in charge.  The cabinet was no longer of any use; Death Eaters didn't need to sneak into Hogwarts until the very end of the story - and it would be a dangerous thing to try - it would be the equivalent of coming down a narrow hall into a (possibly defended) location.  For a small strike force like in Book 6, its great, but for a large attacking force, its probably not ideal.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Jul 23, 2007)

Loincloth of Armour said:
			
		

> [raised eyebrow]
> 
> Second greatest wizarding hero?  All he did was run (with help) a resistance in Hogwarts, and cut the head off a snake at the critical moment.  He showed he was a Gryffindor, true, but the second greatest is a bit much.



The wizard the world will remember as fighting an active resistance to Voldemort's regime, despite attacks on him and his family, and despite still being a student, and who was only the second person to ever pull the Sword of Gryffindor out of the _flaming_ Sorting Hat and who destroyed Nagini during the heat of battle ... was Neville.

Ron and Hermione will be remembered as Harry Potter's shieldbearers.



> That title I think goes to the person who kept Harry *alive* for 7 years _despite_ his best efforts to get himself killed.



Madam Pomfrey?


----------



## Desdichado (Jul 23, 2007)

Whizbang Dustyboots said:
			
		

> It's never stated what happens to them.



Yes, I realize that.


			
				Whizbang said:
			
		

> The Auror and DADA stuff are things that people guessed, but until the next charity books come out (and even after, if they don't cover famous wizards or anything), it's in the realm of fanfic.



Not exactly; Rowling herself had Auror as Harry's career aspirations all through book 5 and 6. 







			
				Whizbang said:
			
		

> All we know is that Neville, arguably the second greatest wizarding hero of the modern age, goes onto be Professor of Herbology at Hogwarts.



Yes, I know, that's why I pointed out that I thought it was disappointing that none of that was resolved.  What'm I missing here?  You've just restated exactly what I was already saying.

Neville as second greatest wizarding hero of the modern age?    I was glad to see him finally come into his own, but... uh... no.

I actually had a discussion with someone who thought that the epilogue and whatnot was *too* pat, which made the book seem like a children's fairy tale.  I pointed out that 1) the entire series has always been written and published with an eye towards youngsters being the primary market, 2) plenty of "adult" books have happy, even "pat" endings.  Jane Austen was infamous for it, in fact.

That led me along a train of thought that I'd actually have liked the book to end in a Jane Austen type ending to be honest with you, which caused my wife to laugh out loud and call me a "closet romantic."  I would really have loved to actually *see* the resolution of the Ginny and Harry romance, and the epilogue would have been better set only a year or two later, not nineteen, and been the big double wedding of Ron/Hermione and Harry/Ginny.  It could be a big reunion, where we see all kinds of other characters talking about what they've been up to career-wise, we could have found out that Neville was engaged to Luna or something, Seamus and Dean could be planning a double wedding with the Patil twins (Dean did mention that he thought they were the best-looking girls in their year, IIRC, in _Goblet of Fire_, etc.

Yes, even more cheesy, but hot damn!  I would have liked it.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Jul 23, 2007)

Hobo said:
			
		

> Not exactly; Rowling herself had Auror as Harry's career aspirations all through book 5 and 6.



Except that now, he's explicitly stated he can't ever let himself be defeated again, so that the Elder Wand's power dies with him. Auror looks like a pretty bad career choice now. I suspect he's doing something very calm and quiet.



> Neville as second greatest wizarding hero of the modern age?    I was glad to see him finally come into his own, but... uh... no.



In the next edition of A History of Magic, who is going to come close to Harry Potter in the way the historians and public view them? Snape? Harry's sidekicks? A lot of the stuff that the readers were privy to -- and that Harry will no doubt tell historians -- aren't things that will resonate with the public the way Neville leading the resistance in Harry's absence and his part in destroying Voldemort did.

Snape, in particular, is going to be a figure that people will argue over, but few but Slytherins are likely to embrace as a hero, no matter what Harry says.

I'm not disputing there's a big gap between #1 and #2, but most of the other contenders for #2 will be seen as Harry's aides, not as people who stepped up on their own. The Order of the Phoenix are relegated to that role -- even though the reader knows that Dumbledore was directing most of that -- which just leaves Dumbledore's Army after Harry doesn't return to Hogwarts. And then, everyone becomes Neville's aides.


----------



## Ilium (Jul 23, 2007)

Kid Charlemagne said:
			
		

> Well, because they could walk in the front door once Dumbledore was gone and Snape put in charge.  The cabinet was no longer of any use; Death Eaters didn't need to sneak into Hogwarts until the very end of the story - and it would be a dangerous thing to try - it would be the equivalent of coming down a narrow hall into a (possibly defended) location.  For a small strike force like in Book 6, its great, but for a large attacking force, its probably not ideal.



 Good point.  Somehow I was thinking quite a bit of time had passed, but really Snape must have become headmaster pretty quickly after Dumbledore's death.


----------



## Desdichado (Jul 23, 2007)

Snape was appointed Headmaster some time after Voldemort took effective control of the Ministry of Magic.  That's even specifically spelled out in one of the earlier chapters, IIRC.


----------



## Desdichado (Jul 23, 2007)

Whizbang Dustyboots said:
			
		

> Except that now, he's explicitly stated he can't ever let himself be defeated again, so that the Elder Wand's power dies with him. Auror looks like a pretty bad career choice now. I suspect he's doing something very calm and quiet.



Yes, I agree.  But until that point, it was *the* leading contender as his career choice, so folks are still discussing it.


			
				Whizbang said:
			
		

> In the next edition of A History of Magic, who is going to come close to Harry Potter in the way the historians and public view them? Snape? Harry's sidekicks? A lot of the stuff that the readers were privy to -- and that Harry will no doubt tell historians -- aren't things that will resonate with the public the way Neville leading the resistance in Harry's absence and his part in destroying Voldemort did.



He was one (of three) leaders of the resistance at *Hogwarts*, which will---at best---be a minor footnote in the history of the Resistance as a whole.  Destroying Nagini is a much greater accomplishment, IMO, but both Ron and Hermione (and Dumbledore) got a piece of that action as well.


----------



## billd91 (Jul 23, 2007)

buzzard said:
			
		

> One plot gripe which I haven't seen mentioned is why was Voldemort a moron? He knew who all the Order of the Phoenix people were, and where they lived. Why weren't they dead or at least in Azkahban? Voldemort wasn't exactly known for merciful tendencies. People were dropping like flies and mudbloods were all getting sent to Azkahban, and yet the core opposition is allowed to run free. That just didn't work for me.
> 
> buzzard




Sure, Voldemort and the Death Eaters could butch off everyone involved in the OOP, but what's his primary goal? Getting Harry. Eventually, Harry or someone traveling with him will slip up or try to make contact. At that point, it's better to keep them under observation in the hopes of making the bigger catch.
Besides, if known detractors are out there, it makes the situation look less dire than it already is. That will help keep the fence-sitters and the timid in line.


----------



## hafrogman (Jul 23, 2007)

Hobo said:
			
		

> Snape was appointed Headmaster some time after Voldemort took effective control of the Ministry of Magic.  That's even specifically spelled out in one of the earlier chapters, IIRC.



Yes, but the intermediate time was the summer holidays.  Nobody was at the school, no students, no faculty.

Dumbledore died at the end of one school year, Snape gets appointed at the begining of the next.


----------



## Desdichado (Jul 23, 2007)

Yeah, I know.  It all depends on your interpretation of "quite a bit of time."


----------



## billd91 (Jul 23, 2007)

Hobo said:
			
		

> Yes, I agree.  But until that point, it was *the* leading contender as his career choice, so folks are still discussing it.




I disagree that it was _truly_ Harry's leading career choice as the 6th book goes on. I don't think anything replaces it but Harry solidifies his opposition to methods at the ministry. I think too much bad blood grows between Harry and the ministry and I'm not at all surprised he doesn't seem to become an auror.

Personally, I thought it was kind of nice to not know what it is Harry is doing 19 years later (other than being a family man and not working at Hogwarts). We get to imagine all sorts of other alternatives. 

I wouldn't have minded an update on other major secondary characters like George and Luna. But I don't feel I really need one.


----------



## Vocenoctum (Jul 23, 2007)

Hobo said:
			
		

> He was one (of three) leaders of the resistance at *Hogwarts*, which will---at best---be a minor footnote in the history of the Resistance as a whole.  Destroying Nagini is a much greater accomplishment, IMO, but both Ron and Hermione (and Dumbledore) got a piece of that action as well.




Truthfully, destroying Nagini is probably a footnote anyway. I think a history of the Second War Against Voldie would have many heroes of many battles, but only Harry would be well known.


----------



## Vocenoctum (Jul 23, 2007)

Wolfwood2 said:
			
		

> I really think the epilogue was just the right length.
> 
> Once you get past the big climax of a book (Voldemort's defeat), the story needs to end fast.  Dragging things on and on afterwards is usually pretty painful.  The epilogue tells us that Harry, Ron, and Hermione have been rewarded with peaceful lives and families and they're happy.




I'll mention it again, but if you view the ending through the veil of a movie scene, it makes more sense I think. The kids looking like Harry or Ron or such running up, talking, The Trio appearing, a nod from Draco. These things will all work much better on screen vs in the book. It's all supposed to resonate with the first train and such, but in the book it's sort of bland I think.

The book, IMO, would have been better served with a character recounting the intervening time to someone else. I'd also have prefered that the book ended at the current day rather than the future, so anything done after could still fit in.


----------



## Vocenoctum (Jul 23, 2007)

Ambrus said:
			
		

> The symbol actually appears on the top of the spine of the children's edition.




It's also the opening art for Chapter 21, where it's described. (though not head on, it's still obvious)


----------



## Ambrus (Jul 23, 2007)

Kid Charlemagne said:
			
		

> Well, because they could walk in the front door once Dumbledore was gone and Snape put in charge.  The cabinet was no longer of any use; Death Eaters didn't need to sneak into Hogwarts until the very end of the story - and it would be a dangerous thing to try - it would be the equivalent of coming down a narrow hall into a (possibly defended) location.  For a small strike force like in Book 6, its great, but for a large attacking force, its probably not ideal.



But why didn't Snape and the Death-Eaters secure the cabinet after taking over? They made a point of blocking up and securing all other secret passages into the school simply to block Order of the Phoenix members and Harry. It wouldn't have taken much effort to move the cabinet out of the Room of Requirement and place it in some more secure location, such as the Headmaster's office for instance.

BTW, can someone tell me what the big deal was with the Deathstick? What did it do that another wand couldn't? It's reputed to make the wielder unbeatable in a duel, and yet its wielders have all been defeated one by one via magic throughout its history. It certainly didn't seem to do a whole lot to protect Dumbledor against Malfoy's oh-so-clever disarming curse. I know Dumbledor had been weakened and all, but if it's sooo mighty why could a sixth year student defeat it's wielder with one shot? If all its previous wielders have been deafeated, why does the deathstick even have this great reputation? As Voldermort showed, it more often seems to be a liability to its wielder than a benefit.


----------



## Loincloth of Armour (Jul 23, 2007)

Whizbang Dustyboots said:
			
		

> The wizard the world will remember as fighting an active resistance to Voldemort's regime, despite attacks on him and his family, and despite still being a student, and who was only the second person to ever pull the Sword of Gryffindor out of the _flaming_ Sorting Hat and who destroyed Nagini during the heat of battle ... was Neville.




And anyone who spends five minutes with him will realize that while a loyal friend, terribly brave and holding a wealth of herbology knowledge... he falls far short of being in the running for #2.  He's the Hagrid of the modern age: good to have around, useful in his areas of expertise, and somewhat of a comic figure.

I like the fact he grew over the books and agree he was a true Gryiffdor, but he's a Perrigin Took-like character.  Steps up when needed and does something very important, but not exactly the cream of the crop.


----------



## Ilium (Jul 23, 2007)

Ambrus said:
			
		

> BTW, can someone tell me what the big deal was with the Deathstick? What did it do that another wand couldn't? It's reputed to make the wielder unbeatable in a duel, and yet its wielders have all been defeated one by one via magic throughout its history. It certainly didn't seem to do a whole lot to protect Dumbledor against Malfoy's oh-so-clever disarming curse. I know Dumbledor had been weakened and all, but if it's sooo mighty why could a sixth year student defeat it's wielder with one shot? Methinks the Deathly Hallows suffer from reputation rather than power.



 Well one thing it did was repair Harry's wand, which Ollivander said couldn't be done.


----------



## Ambrus (Jul 23, 2007)

Ilium said:
			
		

> Well one thing it did was repair Harry's wand, which Ollivander said couldn't be done.



Well, that's something at least. Harry should have given it to Ollivander then so he could start repairing unrepairable wands with it.


----------



## Demmero (Jul 23, 2007)

Kid Charlemagne said:
			
		

> Ron's the one who's actually lacking in the title department.




BS!  Weasley is our King!


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Jul 23, 2007)

hafrogman said:
			
		

> Yes, but the intermediate time was the summer holidays.  Nobody was at the school, no students, no faculty.
> 
> Dumbledore died at the end of one school year, Snape gets appointed at the begining of the next.



Well, schools don't really shut down for the summer. The administrators are there hiring new teachers (always necessary at Hogwarts, it seems) and doing other stuff to prepare for the next school year.

I imagine McGonegal was in charge for the summer as acting headmaster.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Jul 23, 2007)

Loincloth of Armour said:
			
		

> And anyone who spends five minutes with him will realize that while a loyal friend, terribly brave and holding a wealth of herbology knowledge... he falls far short of being in the running for #2.  He's the Hagrid of the modern age: good to have around, useful in his areas of expertise, and somewhat of a comic figure.



Most historians spend very little, if any, time with their subject. That goes double for members of the public.

If the public could spend time with most of their heroes (of any definition), the canon of heroes would be a whole lot smaller.

In the wizarding world's darkest hour, he did something only Harry had ever done before and struck a decisive blow in the battle while surrounded by lots and lots of witnesses who will all know just how important what he did was.

Neville is guaranteed a spot in the history books. His personal failings will be glossed over as "humble beginnings."


----------



## Ilium (Jul 23, 2007)

Whizbang Dustyboots said:
			
		

> Most historians spend very little, if any, time with their subject. That goes double for members of the public.
> 
> If the public could spend time with most of their heroes (of any definition), the canon of heroes would be a whole lot smaller.



 And if they'd spend time actually listening to the "regular people" in their lives, it would get a whole lot bigger again.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Jul 23, 2007)

Ilium said:
			
		

> And if they'd spend time actually listening to the "regular people" in their lives, it would get a whole lot bigger again.



Most lists of folks' heroes seems to include their parents and others they know, so I think most people seem to appreciate what they've got.


----------



## Kid Charlemagne (Jul 23, 2007)

Ambrus said:
			
		

> But why didn't Snape and the Death-Eaters secure the cabinet after taking over? They made a point of blocking up and securing all other secret passages into the school simply to block Order of the Phoenix members and Harry.




One end was in Hogwart's, which they controlled, and the other end was (I think) at the Malfoy House, which they also controlled.  They probably considered it dealt with, if they considered it at all.


----------



## Kid Charlemagne (Jul 23, 2007)

Loincloth of Armour said:
			
		

> And anyone who spends five minutes with him will realize that while a loyal friend, terribly brave and holding a wealth of herbology knowledge... he falls far short of being in the running for #2.  He's the Hagrid of the modern age: good to have around, useful in his areas of expertise, and somewhat of a comic figure.




IIRC, Neville was described in book 5 as being becoming very good with his Defense Against the Dark Arts work, in addition to his herbology.  I think he'll be well-remembered, though 2nd greatest hero might be a stretch.



			
				Demmero said:
			
		

> BS! Weasley is our King!




  I was thinking that might come up....


----------



## Rykion (Jul 23, 2007)

Ambrus said:
			
		

> BTW, can someone tell me what the big deal was with the Deathstick? What did it do that another wand couldn't? It's reputed to make the wielder unbeatable in a duel, and yet its wielders have all been defeated one by one via magic throughout its history. It certainly didn't seem to do a whole lot to protect Dumbledor against Malfoy's oh-so-clever disarming curse. I know Dumbledor had been weakened and all, but if it's sooo mighty why could a sixth year student defeat it's wielder with one shot? If all its previous wielders have been deafeated, why does the deathstick even have this great reputation? As Voldermort showed, it more often seems to be a liability to its wielder than a benefit.



It made any spell cast more powerful, when used by its true owner.  A major point of the fairytale was to show that having more power doesn't actually make you unbeatable.  It will still be a strong draw to any wizard that craves power, such as Voldemort and Dumbledore in his youth.  No matter how powerful a wizard you are, you are a single unblocked spell away from death, no matter the age of the person who cast the spell.


----------



## Ilium (Jul 23, 2007)

Rykion said:
			
		

> It made any spell cast more powerful, when used by its true owner.  A major point of the fairytale was to show that having more power doesn't actually make you unbeatable.  It will still be a strong draw to any wizard that craves power, such as Voldemort and Dumbledore in his youth.  No matter how powerful a wizard you are, you are a single unblocked spell away from death, no matter the age of the person who cast the spell.



 It doesn't even have to be a spell.  In the fairy tale as Hermione read it, the original owner had his throat cut in his sleep.  No magic involved at all.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Jul 23, 2007)

Kid Charlemagne said:
			
		

> One end was in Hogwart's, which they controlled, and the other end was (I think) at the Malfoy House, which they also controlled.  They probably considered it dealt with, if they considered it at all.



I'm guessing the Malfoy Manor end was also warded with spells to alert the residents to anyone in that room other than Malfoys.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Jul 23, 2007)

Rykion said:
			
		

> It made any spell cast more powerful, when used by its true owner.  A major point of the fairytale was to show that having more power doesn't actually make you unbeatable.  It will still be a strong draw to any wizard that craves power, such as Voldemort and Dumbledore in his youth.  No matter how powerful a wizard you are, you are a single unblocked spell away from death, no matter the age of the person who cast the spell.



In D&D terms, I'm guessing it jacked up the caster level of spells cast from it to an epic degree. But that doesn't mean that spells couldn't still block it and it doesn't mean that people can't still make saving throws and the like.

More importantly, since Voldemort never got it to work, we don't know if it could have blasted through Harry's shields normally.


----------



## Vocenoctum (Jul 23, 2007)

Ambrus said:
			
		

> But why didn't Snape and the Death-Eaters secure the cabinet after taking over? They made a point of blocking up and securing all other secret passages into the school simply to block Order of the Phoenix members and Harry.



It was never stated of course, but a safe assumption that the cabinet was rendered inoperable would suffice.



> BTW, can someone tell me what the big deal was with the Deathstick? What did it do that another wand couldn't? It's reputed to make the wielder unbeatable in a duel, and yet its wielders have all been defeated one by one via magic throughout its history. It certainly didn't seem to do a whole lot to protect Dumbledor against Malfoy's oh-so-clever disarming curse.



UberVand or not, Dumbledore could have easily beat Malfoy. He was focused on Harry though. Grindelwald stole it.

Dumbledore's duel with Grindelwald is really the main time when the wand was taken in an actual duel I think. Since we lack real details on that, it's hard to judge what exactly transpired.




> If all its previous wielders have been deafeated, why does the deathstick even have this great reputation? As Voldermort showed, it more often seems to be a liability to its wielder than a benefit.




Voldemort was never a true wielder of the wand. Throughout history, I think the wand had changed hands more through treachery than through face to face duels. It's also possible that the wand chooses when it wants to change hands.


----------



## Loincloth of Armour (Jul 23, 2007)

Whizbang Dustyboots said:
			
		

> Neville is guaranteed a spot in the history books. His personal failings will be glossed over as "humble beginnings."




And Sirusis Black will go down in the wizard history books as a horrible murderer and Death Eater, no matter what those few members of the Order say otherwise.  (There are darn few left alive after Wizard War II who know the truth.)

So even the history books say something, doesn't mean it's true.  [Stop glaring at me for saying that Hermione!]



			
				Vocenoctum said:
			
		

> It was never stated of course, but a safe assumption that the cabinet was rendered inoperable would suffice.




Which is what I thought too.  I assumed after the assault in HBP, the teachers either disenchanted the cabinet or put a locking spell on it.  

And even if they didn't, when Snape took over and locked down the school the cabinet would fall under the 'known' ways into and out of the school and thus be watched and/or sealed.


----------



## Numion (Jul 23, 2007)

I didn't see redemption for any of the Malfoys; they only changed tune because they fell on Voldys bad side, due to repeated failures as Death Eaters.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Jul 23, 2007)

Numion said:
			
		

> I didn't see redemption for any of the Malfoys; they only changed tune because they fell on Voldys bad side, due to repeated failures as Death Eaters.



Except that EVERY Death Eater fails eventually, in Voldemort's eyes. They just had a few bad rolls early on, but not bad enough to die on the spot.

There was no way they'd stick around indefinitely.


----------



## Hijinks (Jul 23, 2007)

> It seemed every single character had some sort of pressing flaw that made them whiny, emotional, and angst-ridden.




I beg to differ.  The vast majority of the Weasleys (especially George and *sniff* Fred) were happy people who did their best to remain a family under tough circumstances.  I never really heard much whining from any of them - except Ron, of course.



> Finally, the epilogue. Wow. That was the most pointless chapter I'd read in the whole book.




I thought the epilogue served a purpose: it guaranteed that no one will be writing a story about the Harry Potter gang that takes up where they left off right after Moldybutt was killed.  I am fine with the series being done, as much as I loved the story and the characters.  I would really hate for someone else to try to revive it.  I think, perhaps, that she wanted to make sure she herself couldn't be lured by money and take up the story again.



> One plot gripe which I haven't seen mentioned is why was Voldemort a moron? He knew who all the Order of the Phoenix people were, and where they lived. Why weren't they dead or at least in Azkahban?




I believe that most of them were either on the run, or it couldn't be proven that they were anti-Ministry.  I got the distinct impression that Moldybutt was having to work within the Ministry rules for the time being, and the Ministry needed proof of wrongdoing.  The purebloods like the Weasleys were protected by their status; if they had been half-bloods or Muggle parents, they would have been dead or in Azkaban.

Overall, I enjoyed the book a lot.  I think it was a fine ending to a fine story.

I think they spent way too much time wandering around the woods and being aimless.  What was the point in going to Bathilda Bagshot's house in Godric's Hollow, other than to see the picture of the young Grindelwald?  and the Deathly Hallows symbol on the gravestone, I guess.  It just seemed to me like they wandered around aimlessly for a long part of the book.

I thought Moldybutt's death was almost an afterthough.  I actually missed it the first time - it was almost midnight and I'd been reading for 8 hours and I was tired and skipping a bit - and I had to go back and re-read that paragraph.  He actually died at the end of a paragraph, his death didn't even rate a full paragraph!  What the...

Did anyone else see a resemblance in Harry going to the woods to offer himself to Moldybutt, to Aslan offering himself to the White Witch?  He offers and doesn't put up any defense, they taunt and humiliate him, someone he loves is watching and helpless, he is killed and falls, they start laughing and jeering...  I definitely saw a correlation.


----------



## kingpaul (Jul 23, 2007)

Hijinks said:
			
		

> Did anyone else see a resemblance in Harry going to the woods to offer himself to Moldybutt, to Aslan offering himself to the White Witch?  He offers and doesn't put up any defense, they taunt and humiliate him, someone he loves is watching and helpless, he is killed and falls, they start laughing and jeering...  I definitely saw a correlation.



I hadn't thought about it, but you're right. And, IIRC, Rowling is a Lewis fan, so it might also have been an attempt to pay homage to Lewis.


----------



## kingpaul (Jul 23, 2007)

Numion said:
			
		

> I didn't see redemption for any of the Malfoys; they only changed tune because they fell on Voldys bad side, due to repeated failures as Death Eaters.



I thought Narcissa redeemed herself. She was a mother first, Death Eater second. Bellatrix, at Snape's house in HBP, said she'd be glad to offer up her sons if they were needed.


----------



## Kid Charlemagne (Jul 23, 2007)

Hijinks said:
			
		

> Did anyone else see a resemblance in Harry going to the woods to offer himself to Moldybutt, to Aslan offering himself to the White Witch?  He offers and doesn't put up any defense, they taunt and humiliate him, someone he loves is watching and helpless, he is killed and falls, they start laughing and jeering...  I definitely saw a correlation.




Of course that goes back to far older tales than CS Lewis - to the story of Christ, and others besides.  There was a very strong Joseph Campbell/Heroes Journey tinge to the story - Rowling was clearly looking for a very "classical" story structure.


----------



## MerricB (Jul 24, 2007)

Read the book twice so far...

Great stuff.

On Voldemort and the Weasleys... we see in the last book that Voldemort really doesn't want to kill pureblood families. He will if he has to, but he wants them to convert to his side. There are really few pureblood families by this point (as Sirius says in book 5), so wiping out the Weasleys is somewhat counterproductive.

After all, Percy has shown him that the Weasleys can come to see his way...

Although _The Deathly Hallows_ is primarily about Harry's search for the Horocruxes, it's as much about Dumbledore, and his flawed desire to find the Hallows. 

The idea that whoever found the Hallows would master death is really not a property of the Hallows, but instead a prophecy that the one who united them (Harry) would master death _by losing his fear of it_. Harry survives Voldemort's killing curse in the forest due to the properties of the Elder Wand, his mother's blessing, and his own willingness to sacrifice himself, which, incidentally, then protects all those fighting against Voldemort against Lord V's spells during the final scenes...

Cheers!


----------



## Dragonblade (Jul 24, 2007)

buzzard said:
			
		

> One plot gripe which I haven't seen mentioned is why was Voldemort a moron? He knew who all the Order of the Phoenix people were, and where they lived. Why weren't they dead or at least in Azkahban? Voldemort wasn't exactly known for merciful tendencies. People were dropping like flies and mudbloods were all getting sent to Azkahban, and yet the core opposition is allowed to run free. That just didn't work for me.




Two reasons. If they were forced to go on the run it would be harder for Voldemort's forces to keep tabs on them and it would make it much more obvious to the world that the Dark Lord had taken over. Harder for people to convince themselves to look the other way.

The second reason is they hoped that someone would slip and lead them to Harry while under surveillance.


----------



## Vocenoctum (Jul 24, 2007)

MerricB said:
			
		

> The idea that whoever found the Hallows would master death is really not a property of the Hallows, but instead a prophecy that the one who united them (Harry) would master death _by losing his fear of it_. Harry survives Voldemort's killing curse in the forest due to the properties of the Elder Wand, his mother's blessing, and his own willingness to sacrifice himself, which, incidentally, then protects all those fighting against Voldemort against Lord V's spells during the final scenes...




Of course, funny enough, Harry never had all three at the same time, so...

Some centaur will be wandering around and find a resurrection stone!


----------



## The Grumpy Celt (Jul 24, 2007)

I wonder what a normal 7th year at Hogwarts is like.


----------



## blargney the second (Jul 24, 2007)

I wonder what a normal *any* year at Hogwarts is like.


----------



## Steel_Wind (Jul 24, 2007)

MerricB said:
			
		

> The idea that whoever found the Hallows would master death is really not a property of the Hallows, but instead a prophecy that the one who united them (Harry) would master death _by losing his fear of it_. Harry survives Voldemort's killing curse in the forest due to the properties of the Elder Wand, his mother's blessing, and his own willingness to sacrifice himself, which, incidentally, then protects all those fighting against Voldemort against Lord V's spells during the final scenes...
> 
> Cheers!




Not bad Merric. I'll buy that.


----------



## SteelDraco (Jul 24, 2007)

I had a question that I didn't see resolved in the book.

Does it ever explain how the two Death Eaters find Harry and Co after they disapparate from Bill and Fleur's wedding? They appear in a Muggle neighborhood, and head into a cafe, where it turns out two Death Eaters are already there, waiting for them. 

I don't remember any explanation given about how they knew where to go, though.


----------



## bodhi (Jul 24, 2007)

SteelDraco said:
			
		

> I had a question that I didn't see resolved in the book.
> 
> Does it ever explain how the two Death Eaters find Harry and Co after they disapparate from Bill and Fleur's wedding? They appear in a Muggle neighborhood, and head into a cafe, where it turns out two Death Eaters are already there, waiting for them.
> 
> I don't remember any explanation given about how they knew where to go, though.



It's addressed later, when Ron rejoins Harry and Hermione. There's a Taboo instituted on the name "Voldemort", so saying it out loud notifies them where they speaker is (and anyone actually saying the name is probably fighting against him). And that's how they get captured later, when Harry forgets about the Taboo.


----------



## Tiberius (Jul 24, 2007)

bodhi said:
			
		

> It's addressed later, when Ron rejoins Harry and Hermione. There's a Taboo instituted on the name "Voldemort", so saying it out loud notifies them where they speaker is (and anyone actually saying the name is probably fighting against him). And that's how they get captured later, when Harry forgets about the Taboo.




I'm surprised that, after they learned about the Taboo, they didn't decide to just refer to Voldemort as Tom. After all, Tom is substantially more common than Voldemort or Riddle; couldn't very well Taboo that. Still probably wouldn't have mattered; I suspect Harry would have forgotten himself, said the name, and gotten captured anyway.


----------



## Hammerhead (Jul 24, 2007)

And calling Voldy Tom is sure to tick him off, which is just fun all around.


----------



## Numion (Jul 24, 2007)

Hammerhead said:
			
		

> And calling Voldy Tom is sure to tick him off, which is just fun all around.




That was a nice touch in the series. Voldemort is a pretty grand name; I always wondered how wizards end up with such names. Is somebody born 'Saruman' or 'Voldemort'? It's much better explanation that Tom took it from somewhere. 

BTW, before his wizarding days Gandalf was Buck Johnson, and Saruman was just known as .. Tim. Once they started slingin' fireballs they had to come up with proper wizarding names. It's all in one of those Middle-Earth guides.


----------



## Numion (Jul 24, 2007)

Harry Potter is good D&D PC material; much more pissed of for losing his stuff (Wand in this case), than he was for losing Mad-Eye, a party member. Sounds like a D&D character to me


----------



## Donovan Morningfire (Jul 24, 2007)

Hammerhead said:
			
		

> And calling Voldy Tom is sure to tick him off, which is just fun all around.



Which is what Harry did during their final confrontation


----------



## Kid Charlemagne (Jul 24, 2007)

Dragonblade said:
			
		

> Two reasons. If they were forced to go on the run it would be harder for Voldemort's forces to keep tabs on them and it would make it much more obvious to the world that the Dark Lord had taken over. Harder for people to convince themselves to look the other way.




A third reason - I think that most of the Order of the Pheonix made thier houses unplottable, so that they couldn't easily be found.  They'd all gone pretty much underground and were not easy to find, even by wizards.


----------



## Donovan Morningfire (Jul 24, 2007)

Numion said:
			
		

> Harry Potter is good D&D PC material; much more pissed of for losing his stuff (Wand in this case), than he was for losing Mad-Eye, a party member. Sounds like a D&D character to me



Well, Mad-Eye went down fighting the good fight.  Harry needed his wand to survive, since he was still banking on the twin core effect to help save his ass.  Hedwig was a good and loyal friend.  He also lost his Firebolt, and never gave that a second thought.


----------



## Flexor the Mighty! (Jul 24, 2007)

Kid Charlemagne said:
			
		

> A third reason - I think that most of the Order of the Pheonix made thier houses unplottable, so that they couldn't easily be found.  They'd all gone pretty much underground and were not easy to find, even by wizards.




Yeah.  I'm sure there were some really heavy enchantments laid around a lot of the houses with secret keepers and whatnot.


----------



## Desdichado (Jul 24, 2007)

Donovan Morningfire said:
			
		

> He also lost his Firebolt, and never gave that a second thought.



I don't remember that.  When did that happen?


			
				The Grumpy Celt said:
			
		

> I wonder what a normal 7th year at Hogwarts is like.



Probably not much different than a 5th year.  You get some career counselling, you take NEWTS instead of OWLS, but they're probably similar.

Maybe wizarding recruiters come to the school?


----------



## Rykion (Jul 24, 2007)

Vocenoctum said:
			
		

> Of course, funny enough, Harry never had all three at the same time, so...



He didn't physically have all three, but he had the cloak, the stone and was the true owner of the wand.


			
				Hobo said:
			
		

> I don't remember that. When did that happen?



He dropped it while in the flying motorcycle's sidecar.


----------



## Ilium (Jul 24, 2007)

-Never mind, others beat me to it.


----------



## GreyRat (Jul 24, 2007)

MerricB said:
			
		

> On Voldemort and the Weasleys... we see in the last book that Voldemort really doesn't want to kill pureblood families. He will if he has to, but he wants them to convert to his side. There are really few pureblood families by this point (as Sirius says in book 5), so wiping out the Weasleys is somewhat counterproductive.




Yeah, that always gets me to convert to the side of murdering fascists: "We want *you*...  for breeding stock."    

Definitely some good action scenes in the book.  I don't know if I've gotten too used to the movies, or if Rowling is picturing the films already, but I could already hear some of the lines in the actors' voices.  

FWIW, I liked the revelations about Dumbledore's past, and thought the revelation of his brother (and his goat patronus   )was well placed.  I've never liked the substitution of the Penseive for actual past-revealing dialog, but that's my hang-up.  The Deluminator-ex-machina nearly broke my suspension of disbelief, though.  I'll just try to ignore that bit, next time I read it.


----------



## Vocenoctum (Jul 24, 2007)

GreyRat said:
			
		

> The Deluminator-ex-machina nearly broke my suspension of disbelief, though.  I'll just try to ignore that bit, next time I read it.




A friend also mentioned that problem, but I never had an issue with it. It would be easy for Dumbledore to add the enchantment to the item in order to hide it from the Ministry. The need was obvious, since every year Ron and Harry had some sort of spat that split them up. 

Or, as Robot Chicken said it;
Ron: "Oh Harry, I'm scared!"
Harry: "You're always scared you Chickensh**!"


----------



## Desdichado (Jul 24, 2007)

GreyRat said:
			
		

> FWIW, I liked the revelations about Dumbledore's past, and thought the revelation of his brother (and his goat patronus   )was well placed.



I miss having Aberforth's Goat as my custom user title.  

Here's a question for everyone.  Nearly-Headless tells Harry at the end of Book 5 that those who are afraid of passing on remain as ghosts.  Voldemort seems to have feared death more than anyone encountered to date.  Any ghost potential there, or the fact that he's broken his soul into multiple pieces nix that idea?


----------



## WayneLigon (Jul 24, 2007)

Numion said:
			
		

> I didn't see redemption for any of the Malfoys; they only changed tune because they fell on Voldys bad side, due to repeated failures as Death Eaters.




I think I see some for Draco. All this time he's been basically playing at 'Evil'. Once he sees what the face of evil is really like, he backs away from it.

Lucius, no, I don't see any real redemption for him. He was a tool that didn't live up to expectations. He spent years as a bigwig: board of directors of this and that, lunch with the Minister of Magic on Saturdays, blah blah blah. He expected the Dark Lord to return and shower him with power and glory, and he forgot that in Voldemort's eyes he was just a minion, no better than the other tools.


----------



## Ambrus (Jul 24, 2007)

Vocenoctum said:
			
		

> Some centaur will be wandering around and find a resurrection stone!



Sounds like a bad Monty Haul campaign in the making.  

DM: Alright. Your PC is wandering around the darkened forest.
PC: Oh hey! I'm running low on sling stones. I look around for some to refill my pouch.
*DM rolls*
DM: Hm. Your PC finds a small black stone in the underbrush. It has a crack snaking across its surface. Congrats. You've just found the legendary *Resurrection Stone*.
PC: Uh. Neat. I, uh, look around for a sword and some armor..."


----------



## Vocenoctum (Jul 24, 2007)

WayneLigon said:
			
		

> I think I see some for Draco. All this time he's been basically playing at 'Evil'. Once he sees what the face of evil is really like, he backs away from it.



I'd say he and his mother were never fully behind Voldemort and the more that they got drawn in, the more they balked at it.



> Lucius, no, I don't see any real redemption for him. He was a tool that didn't live up to expectations. He spent years as a bigwig: board of directors of this and that, lunch with the Minister of Magic on Saturdays, blah blah blah. He expected the Dark Lord to return and shower him with power and glory, and he forgot that in Voldemort's eyes he was just a minion, no better than the other tools.




They don't go into any details about the future of Azkaban, but I'm pretty sure Lucius isn't a free man anyway, change of heart or not.


----------



## Hijinks (Jul 24, 2007)

> I always wondered how wizards end up with such names. Is somebody born 'Saruman' or 'Voldemort'?




In at least the film version of The Chamber of Secrets, Tom Riddle spells out "Tom Marvolo Riddle" and rewrites it in the air to spell out "I am Lord Voldemort."  I don't recall if that was in the book as well, since it's been ages since I read it.

But that's where he got his name, iirc.


----------



## Barendd Nobeard (Jul 24, 2007)

*JK Rowling has a great sense of humor*

Just a brief tangent....

JK Rowling has a great sense of humor.

Warning, SPOILERS for "Half-Blood Prince"

[sblock]From CNN:



			
				JKR said:
			
		

> "I suppose it's fair game," she said. "You can't be too precious about this stuff. Obviously, as a writer I would prefer people to be able to sit down and read it and discover the ending through reading the whole story. But with 'Half-Blood Prince,' people dangled a sheet over a flyover (overpass) the next day -- 'Snape kills Dumbledore.' Part of me does find that very funny; I can't help myself."




[/SBLOCK]


----------



## bodhi (Jul 25, 2007)

GreyRat said:
			
		

> I've never liked the substitution of the Penseive for actual past-revealing dialog, but that's my hang-up.



I like it as a plot gimmick.
1) You get the fully-immersive holodeck style flashback.
2) You get stuff in a memory that that a person might not consciously remember.
3) When Slughorn modifies his memory, the tampering is pretty obvious.
4) And (possibly the best from a GM standpoint), you get the flashback without needing the person. You have to acquire the memory in the first place, but once you have it, you don't need the person to be there (or even be alive).


----------



## Edena_of_Neith (Jul 25, 2007)

I hope the wizarding world got rid of the dementors for once and all.


----------



## Donovan Morningfire (Jul 25, 2007)

Hobo said:
			
		

> Here's a question for everyone.  Nearly-Headless tells Harry at the end of Book 5 that those who are afraid of passing on remain as ghosts.  Voldemort seems to have feared death more than anyone encountered to date.  Any ghost potential there, or the fact that he's broken his soul into multiple pieces nix that idea?



I'm guessing that since Voldemort's soul was so unstable and tattered at that point there wasn't enough left of it to form an imprint.

Could also be that part of why the Killing Curse is so reviled is that it destroys the target's soul, thus making their return as a ghost impossible.  Of the three ghosts whose origins we've learned (Nick, Grey Lady, Bloody Baron), none of them died by magical means.  And since Voldy got fragged by his own curse with a bare pittance of a soul left to call his own... I'd have to agree with Bones in that he's dead Jim.


----------



## Flexor the Mighty! (Jul 25, 2007)

Donovan Morningfire said:
			
		

> I'm guessing that since Voldemort's soul was so unstable and tattered at that point there wasn't enough left of it to form an imprint.
> 
> Could also be that part of why the Killing Curse is so reviled is that it destroys the target's soul, thus making their return as a ghost impossible.  Of the three ghosts whose origins we've learned (Nick, Grey Lady, Bloody Baron), none of them died by magical means.  And since Voldy got fragged by his own curse with a bare pittance of a soul left to call his own... I'd have to agree with Bones in that he's dead Jim.




I don't think so.  That is why Dementors were so feared, they destroyed the soul.  The killing curse just kills instantly.


----------



## Tiberius (Jul 25, 2007)

Donovan Morningfire said:
			
		

> Of the three ghosts whose origins we've learned (Nick, Grey Lady, Bloody Baron), none of them died by magical means.




Don't forget Myrtle, who did die of magical means (insofar as a basilisk is an unnatural creature).


----------



## Donovan Morningfire (Jul 25, 2007)

Tiberius said:
			
		

> Don't forget Myrtle, who did die of magical means (insofar as a basilisk is an unnatural creature).



After the GoF movie, I was trying to forget Myrtle *shudders*  Basilisk stare got her, which from all indications causes a physical death.

But now that I think about it a bit more, I probably am off on the AK destroying the soul, since James and Lily Potter's ghosts both showed up towards the end to accompany Harry to his "fate," and both of them got AK'd.  Perhaps instead of soul destruction, it just kicks the soul straight to the afterlife without so much as a "by your leave."  Voldy is also a pretty unique case, since he'd split his soul several times, when most Horcrux creators settled for just the once.


----------



## buzzard (Jul 25, 2007)

Edena_of_Neith said:
			
		

> I hope the wizarding world got rid of the dementors for once and all.




Of course this begs a question of how you do it. All we've seen is how to drive them away. I certainly hope there's a way to wipe the damned things out. 

buzzard


----------



## Desdichado (Jul 25, 2007)

I wonder.  Horcruxes vs. phylacteries.  Obviously it's the same idea.  Has anyone given any thought to a D&D lich with multiple phylacteries spread across the world?  The planes?  Etc.


----------



## cignus_pfaccari (Jul 25, 2007)

Hobo said:
			
		

> I wonder.  Horcruxes vs. phylacteries.  Obviously it's the same idea.  Has anyone given any thought to a D&D lich with multiple phylacteries spread across the world?  The planes?  Etc.




IIRC, there's a Netherese lich in the Realms who's split his phylactery a bajillion times.

Brad


----------



## yipwyg42 (Jul 26, 2007)

Warning potential spoilers ahead





hightligt below to read

I was wondering if the Peverells lived before or after Salazar Slytherin.


----------



## Desdichado (Jul 26, 2007)

Where's the spoilers?


----------



## kingpaul (Jul 26, 2007)

yipwyg42 said:
			
		

> I was wondering if the Peverells lived before or after Salazar Slytherin.



I'm guessing



Spoiler



before, since they've been relegated to fairy tale. Hogwarts was founded about 1,000 years ago, and they're still talked about as real people. Further, I'm guessing because of the outright implication that Harry is descended from the 3rd brother and the Gaunts from the 2nd (why else would they have the Resurrection Stone), Harry and Tom are *very* distant cousins.


----------



## Kid Charlemagne (Jul 26, 2007)

Rowling has done an interview with Today that gives a lot of extra little tidbits about how folks ended up:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19959323/


----------



## Flexor the Mighty! (Jul 26, 2007)

Kid Charlemagne said:
			
		

> Rowling has done an interview with Today that gives a lot of extra little tidbits about how folks ended up:
> 
> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19959323/




That seems strange, If Harry becomes an Auror wouldn't he always be at risk of being disarmed, defeated, out dueled, thus losing control of the Elder Wand?  Didn't he say he has had enough excitement for a lifetime at the end of the book?


----------



## buzzard (Jul 26, 2007)

Flexor the Mighty! said:
			
		

> That seems strange, If Harry becomes an Auror wouldn't he always be at risk of being disarmed, defeated, out dueled, thus losing control of the Elder Wand?  Didn't he say he has had enough excitement for a lifetime at the end of the book?





Here is where we get to the point of the reader doing more analysis than the author. 

buzzard


----------



## Tiberius (Jul 26, 2007)

Yeah, it seems to shoot my theory down. Seems silly of him to go into that field, given the Elder Wand shenanigans.


----------



## Victim (Jul 26, 2007)

Flexor the Mighty! said:
			
		

> That seems strange, If Harry becomes an Auror wouldn't he always be at risk of being disarmed, defeated, out dueled, thus losing control of the Elder Wand?  Didn't he say he has had enough excitement for a lifetime at the end of the book?




That assumes someone wants to resist arrest from the Chosen One carrying the Elder Wand.


----------



## Flexor the Mighty! (Jul 26, 2007)

buzzard said:
			
		

> Here is where we get to the point of the reader doing more analysis than the author.
> 
> buzzard




I was just stating what she wrote in the book when Harry was talking about putting the Wand back in Dumbledore's tomb for that reason.


----------



## Flexor the Mighty! (Jul 26, 2007)

Victim said:
			
		

> That assumes someone wants to resist arrest from the Chosen One carrying the Elder Wand.




Well he's not carrying the Elder Wand, it went back in Dumbledore's tomb after he fixed his Phoenix wand with it.  And there is always a hotshot wanting to make a name by taking down the top guy.  Heck a simple disarm spell would pass ownership of the Wand.


----------



## Tiberius (Jul 26, 2007)

Flexor the Mighty! said:
			
		

> Heck a simple disarm spell would pass ownership of the Wand.




Apparently a simple punch to the face followed by a wand-grabbing will transfer ownership, IIRC.


----------



## Hijinks (Jul 26, 2007)

Hrm you wouldn't think they would let him be an Auror, having used (or tried to use) two of the unforgivable curses.


----------



## Pyrex (Jul 26, 2007)

Apparently they really aren't that unforgivable afterall.

Harry has used them, Draco has used them, even McGonnagal has used them; yet none of them (apparently) were ever brought up on charges.


----------



## Slife (Jul 26, 2007)

Hijinks said:
			
		

> Hrm you wouldn't think they would let him be an Auror, having used (or tried to use) two of the unforgivable curses.



"I'm sorry, Mr. Potter, but as the law clearly states-"

*IMPERIO!* 

"You are free to become an auror.  "


----------



## Vocenoctum (Jul 26, 2007)

Flexor the Mighty! said:
			
		

> That seems strange, If Harry becomes an Auror wouldn't he always be at risk of being disarmed, defeated, out dueled, thus losing control of the Elder Wand?  Didn't he say he has had enough excitement for a lifetime at the end of the book?




She says Harry & Ron totally revamp the Aurors, so I assume that included the policy of "Former Death Eater Meat Shields", which are placed all about him, ready to take a killing curse in his stead. I imagine they also outlawed all criminals, thus making it a lot safer.


----------



## Loincloth of Armour (Jul 27, 2007)

Or they simply 'forgot' to tell people that Harry replaced the Elder Wand back in Dumbeldore's tomb.  So even if Harry is disarmed, the Deathstick is locked under a tonne of granite on the grounds of the most magically protected place in Britain.


----------



## buzzard (Jul 27, 2007)

Flexor the Mighty! said:
			
		

> I was just stating what she wrote in the book when Harry was talking about putting the Wand back in Dumbledore's tomb for that reason.




I'm not gainsaying your comment. I was more pointing out that she didn't think through the consequences of what she wrote. 

buzzard


----------



## Digital M@ (Jul 28, 2007)

In the end, if it is not in the book, then it is not really part of the story.  Just because Rowling sees Ron and Harry revamping the Auror office does not mean it is fact.  It is completely omitted from the story leaving it up to the reader on where they see the characters going and doing.

If you believe her word as canon the, she does not mention that Harry joins the Minisrty right away.  He could have gone to school for a year and then explored some failed or unfillfilling job choices before being approached by the ministry to take a key role in re-organizing a dissheveled, understaffed and unorganized Auror branch.  Obviosuly being a Auror for the nex 19 years is not too danerous.  If Ron survived being as dimwitted and unskilled as he is, there must not have been too much trouble.


----------



## Donovan Morningfire (Jul 28, 2007)

I think Harry being an Auror (or Ron too for that matter) doesn't automatically mean constant field work, and thus threat of the Elder Wand's legacy continuing past Harry's natural death.  I think Hagrid had the measure of him when he said Harry would "be a thumpin' good" wizard "once he'd trained up a bit."  After all, Harry managed to do alright against older and more accomplished wizards and that was only with haphazard defensive training.  Now take all that raw talent and put him under the tutelage of the best Aurors out there, and you've got the recipe for an Auror that might one day rival the near-legendary Mad-Eye Moody.  Ron might do better as support staff than field agent.

Also, who's to say that if someone managed to Disarm or defeat (but not kill Harry), that he couldn't bounce right back and defeat them, thus reclaiming control of the Elder Wand?


----------



## GirII (Jul 28, 2007)

Digital M@ said:
			
		

> In the end, if it is not in the book, then it is not really part of the story.  Just because Rowling sees Ron and Harry revamping the Auror office does not mean it is fact.  It is completely omitted from the story leaving it up to the reader on where they see the characters going and doing.
> 
> If you believe her word as canon the, she does not mention that Harry joins the Minisrty right away.  He could have gone to school for a year and then explored some failed or unfillfilling job choices before being approached by the ministry to take a key role in re-organizing a dissheveled, understaffed and unorganized Auror branch.  Obviosuly being a Auror for the nex 19 years is not too danerous.  If Ron survived being as dimwitted and unskilled as he is, there must not have been too much trouble.




I don't much like this notion that some people have about Ron being dimwitted, unskilled, the comedy-relief side-kick who can't do anything right, etc., etc., etc.  He can be a funny character, no doubt.  Hell, he's the younger brother of Fred and George!  Yeah, he has sometimes suffered from a lack of confidence--he is the youngest of 6 brothers--all rather remarkable in their own way.  And we're seeing Ron as a teenager...  

Ron shows incredible resourcefulness, intelligence, and bravery.  No, he's not constantly resourceful, intelligent, or brave.  None of the characters are.  It was Ron who got past McGonall's chess set in the quest to save the Sorcerer's Stone--sacrificing himself in the process, I might add.  He goes out into the forbidden forest, following the spiders--and he has a severe case of archnaphobia!  It was difficult enough to enter that forest--but to do so facing your greatest fear, that took more bravery than Harry displayed at that moment.  It was Ron who had the brilliant idea to get some basilisk fangs from the chamber of secrets to destroy the horcruxes.  It was Ron who opened the chamber--figuring out the right way of saying "open" in parseltongue.  

Ron may not be as daring as Harry.  Harry's daring is in part a result of the life he's led, the family he was denied, the bullying he endured.  Ron had the idyllic family--even with Percy, and in spite of the fact his teddy bear was turned into a spider by his brother.  Compare Ron's daring to the rest of the student population at Hogwarts--he far surpasses his classmates.  Ron's not as brilliant as Hermione--then again, no student at Hogwarts is--including Harry.  

When constantly compared to Harry and Hermione, yeah Ron will come up short in a number of ways.  But too many people forget when comparing them that you're comparing extraordinary characters.  Just because Ron is not as extraordinary as Harry or Hermione in their fashion, does not make Ron a sub-standard character.


----------



## David Howery (Jul 29, 2007)

my general thoughts:  I liked the book a lot overall, but I thought it could have used some trimming, particularly in the 'wandering in the wilderness' scenes.  The battle at Hogwarts was just neat... that'll make a great scene in the final movie...


----------



## Richards (Jul 30, 2007)

I just finished it over the weekend (I had to wait for my son to read it first, as it's his book), and I really enjoyed it.  It's kind of sad to think that there won't be any more Harry Potter books to look forward to in the future.  In fact, I think Sheldon and Arthur perhaps said it best:

http://www.sheldoncomics.com/archive/070720.html

Johnathan


----------



## freyar (Jul 30, 2007)

Finally got to read this Friday, after waiting until my b-day for my copy.  

I did expect that there'd be a bit more horcrux hunting in the bulk of the book, but it was nonetheless a fun read.  Besides not telling more of their futures, my main quibble is that the deathly hallows themselves seemed almost like a retcon in comparison to so many of the other details.  In particular, in DH, Harry's cloak is supposed to be a perfect invisibility cloak, but, IIRC, Moody's eye and the Marauder's Map can "see" through it.  Or is Xeno just an unreliable narrator, like Volo is supposed to be?


----------



## Edena_of_Neith (Jul 30, 2007)

Considering their actions and the results, and their allies, Harry, Hermione, Ron, and Neville could have written their own tickets to anywhere after the events in Book Seven.
  Want to be Head of the Auror Department?  You got it.  Want to be head of the Department of Magical Law Enforcement?  You got it.  Think everyone in the Ministry of Magic needs a thousand percent pay raise?  You got it.  Want to be Minister of Magic?  You got it.  Want Hogwart's reorganized the way you want it?  You got it.  (Oh, and you want Outstanding Grades on every known wizarding subject?  You got it.)

  Our author states that Harry, Hermione, and Ron played the major role in reorganizing the Ministry of Magic (for all intents and purposes, reorganizing and rebuilding the government of Great Britain.)  They completely made it over into something new.  It is implied this new Ministry is free of political corruption in the normal sense, and is a highly competent and effective government.

  Rowling also implies there were 19 years of peace and quiet.  We may have Harry in the James Bond department (the Aurors) and Hermione Granger in the Sherlock Holmes department (Magical Law Enforcement) but in those 19 years no SPECTRE or Moriarty (sp?) emerged to become a problem.
  Which is well and good.  One would think Harry, Hermione, and the others had earned some peace and quiet.

  -

  Quoting Rowling:

  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.


----------



## Ace32 (Jul 30, 2007)

Edena_of_Neith said:
			
		

> Quoting Rowling:
> 
> 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.




That seems like exactly the sort of thing that belongs in the epilogue! After all, its the end to THEIR story - not the beginning of their kid's...

I'm sure I'll gripe about Rowling using tantalizing details like this to sell future books... as I stand in line to pay for them.


----------



## Vocenoctum (Jul 30, 2007)

Edena_of_Neith said:
			
		

> Considering their actions and the results, and their allies, Harry, Hermione, Ron, and Neville could have written their own tickets to anywhere after the events in Book Seven.



Plus, they know the people that ARE running things at that point. I can't imagine thing settle down right away, like LotR still had battle raging, in spite of no Dark Lord.

The Dementor rebellion, giants in Britain, the goblins ill-treatment, not to mention figuring out which folks were actually loyal to Voldemort vs those Imperioused.

The books had been getting steadily "older" in nature, but 7 seemed to change the format a bit (in the way that I mentioned it seemed to be made more with the movie in mind), and frankly I think the ending itself was written for a younger audience. "oh, they're married, happy, have kids, how cute" the end.



> Our author states that Harry, Hermione, and Ron played the major role in reorganizing the Ministry of Magic (for all intents and purposes, reorganizing and rebuilding the government of Great Britain.)  They completely made it over into something new.  It is implied this new Ministry is free of political corruption in the normal sense, and is a highly competent and effective government.



Sure it's a fantasy series, but I don't think any of us can swing enough suspension of disbelieve to think there is a compentent and effective government.


----------



## WayneLigon (Jul 30, 2007)

Edena_of_Neith said:
			
		

> Our author states that Harry, Hermione, and Ron played the major role in reorganizing the Ministry of Magic (for all intents and purposes, reorganizing and rebuilding the government of Great Britain.)




The normal and Wizarding worlds barely intersect, though. They sent one guy to protect the muggle Prime Minister but that was it. The Ministry of Magic kinda goes it's own way and stays out of the mundane's realm and visa-versa. I doubt that if the Prime Minister really had any effect on the Ministry of Magic that he's have allowed it's excesses in the latter books. He seems to know that it exists, but that's about it.


----------



## kingpaul (Jul 30, 2007)

Vocenoctum said:
			
		

> Sure it's a fantasy series, but I don't think any of us can swing enough suspension of disbelieve to think there is a compentent and effective government.



Sure you can...just ram your head into a brick wall several times.


----------



## Flexor the Mighty! (Jul 30, 2007)

Digital M@ said:
			
		

> In the end, if it is not in the book, then it is not really part of the story.  Just because Rowling sees Ron and Harry revamping the Auror office does not mean it is fact.  It is completely omitted from the story leaving it up to the reader on where they see the characters going and doing.




Good point.  If it isn't on the page it didn't really happen, yet or at all.  Personally I think HP would lead a quite life after all that crap.


----------



## Digital M@ (Jul 31, 2007)

freyar said:
			
		

> Finally got to read this Friday, after waiting until my b-day for my copy.
> 
> I did expect that there'd be a bit more horcrux hunting in the bulk of the book, but it was nonetheless a fun read.  Besides not telling more of their futures, my main quibble is that the deathly hallows themselves seemed almost like a retcon in comparison to so many of the other details.  In particular, in DH, Harry's cloak is supposed to be a perfect invisibility cloak, but, IIRC, Moody's eye and the Marauder's Map can "see" through it.  Or is Xeno just an unreliable narrator, like Volo is supposed to be?




I may have missed it, but I don't really see why the hallows were essential to the story or what they even added.  I mean you could have shown a young Dumbledore hungry for power in any number of ways.  The super wand never really plays a role and could of been any wand of renoun power.  The cloak as quoted above, was nothing more than an ordinary cloak of invisabilit  that did not break down.  

I really want to like this book more than I do, I keep replaying it in my head, focusing on the parts I liked.  While I did not want Harry to be a Horcrux, I could live with it and embrace it, but I really wanted Harry to mature and apply himself.  I wanted  Harry to show some cleverness, ingenuity and real potential.  Instead we see Hermione doing all of the spell casting, solving all of the problems and taking charge of all of the situations.  ROwling should have ust kept Dumbledore alive if Harry was not going to solve anything on his own.  And having Harry win by turning V's spell back on himself was unfullfilling.  I wanted Harry to become the hero everyone thought he was.

Now, maybe part of the point of the story was to shed light that hero's feats are often blown out of proportion, that they can't do things for themselves or they might not even be the most important character in the turn of events, but that is not what I wanted out of this story.  I wanted Harry to really become the  "choosen one" istead of stumbling on through a bunch of accidents and the work of others.

IMO, Harry could of shined and Neville could have still killed the snake and Hermione could have been smart and adept and Ron could have followed people around and been dependable.  The book also seemed rushed.   Neville's killing scene could of had more grandure, Fred's death more trauma etc.  The action scenes were fast and sometimes hard to follow.  They did not have the same grandure as the end of the Order of the Pheonix, which is one of my all time favorite combat scenes.  To much too fast, even the many excelllent parts of the book can be easily glossed over and too quickly dissappear by all of the other activities.  I will re-read it after my wife is done as I siad before I really really want to like this book and I hope I over looked things in my first reading.


----------



## Kankichi (Jul 31, 2007)

*New Info from CNN*

Just saw this on CNN.  Doesn't mention Ron the Auror

http://www.cnn.com/2007/SHOWBIZ/books/07/30/potters.afterlife.ap/index.html


----------



## frankthedm (Jul 31, 2007)

Flexor the Mighty! said:
			
		

> I don't think so.  That is why Dementors were so feared, they destroyed the soul.  The killing curse just kills instantly.



Also Snape would not have used the killing curse on dumbles had it been a soul destroyer.

Hell, IMHO the Ministry of Magic's willfull use of dementors put them on my  list. I like the dementors as a monster, but using those damnable things is a hell of a lot worse than any 'unforgivable curse'


----------



## billd91 (Jul 31, 2007)

Pyrex said:
			
		

> Apparently they really aren't that unforgivable afterall.
> 
> Harry has used them, Draco has used them, even McGonnagal has used them; yet none of them (apparently) were ever brought up on charges.




We actually already knew this was the case from _Goblet of Fire_. Barty Crouch, during the first Voldemort crisis, had the Ministry using the curses on Death Eaters and most of the wizarding world agreed with his decision.


----------



## Plane Sailing (Jul 31, 2007)

Well, I've just finished the book.

I'd have liked to see the first 200 pages cut down to about 50 or so, I got thoroughly bored by the endless wandering around and dead ends and so forth. 

Once everyone got to Hogwarts at the end I liked it, and I felt that the final battle(s) and the resolution of the Voldemort problem was excellent. Interesting that it is only after Snapes death that we really get to see significant additional things about his character, and it makes him an even more tragic figure.

I wasn't impressed by the epilogue, except as a way of showing that Harry had forgiven Snape.

I have one unanswered question come the end - why did JKR have Sirius fall through the mysterious 'curtain' rather than just die? It seemed to be portending something but... didn't.

Cheers


----------



## kingpaul (Aug 1, 2007)

Plane Sailing said:
			
		

> I have one unanswered question come the end - why did JKR have Sirius fall through the mysterious 'curtain' rather than just die? It seemed to be portending something but... didn't.



So there was room for sequels?


----------



## Ilium (Aug 1, 2007)

Plane Sailing said:
			
		

> I have one unanswered question come the end - why did JKR have Sirius fall through the mysterious 'curtain' rather than just die? It seemed to be portending something but... didn't.
> 
> Cheers



Pure conjecture on my part, but I think it was to make it harder for Harry to accept his death.  In real life, of course, people often go through a denial phase when someone close to them dies.  By having Sirius die in this weird, ambiguous way, JKR makes it easier for us to sympathize with Harry's nagging suspicion that Sirius is still alive.  Also, it makes the death "pure."  That is, Sirius just died.  He didn't suffer or anything.  That forces Harry to deal with the simple fact of his death without dragging in the trauma of watching him die in any kind of specific way.

So, in short, I think it had more to do with character development than plot.


----------



## sckeener (Aug 1, 2007)

Plane Sailing said:
			
		

> I have one unanswered question come the end - why did JKR have Sirius fall through the mysterious 'curtain' rather than just die? It seemed to be portending something but... didn't.




That is one question I have as well.  The only vague reference to it in the Deathly Hallows is when they were discussing the Hallows with Luna's father and he mentioned the 'curtain'...and that was it...a mere mention and not even in reference to the particular curtain in the dept of mysteries.  

I fully expected the curtain to work into the story...but it didn't, so I am left wondering.

As for the Hallows themselves, I found them needed only for Harry's decision while burying Dobby...the whole adolescent lust for power (elder wand) vs doing the responsible thing (destroying horcruxes)


----------



## The Grumpy Celt (Aug 2, 2007)

I always took it that the curtain was was a kind of "wizard gas chamber" for executions, so I as never really fascinated by it.

Some parts felt a bit drawn out and other's too brief. The climatic battle was great, as was Voldy's death.


----------



## GirII (Aug 2, 2007)

Ace32 said:
			
		

> That seems like exactly the sort of thing that belongs in the epilogue! After all, its the end to THEIR story - not the beginning of their kid's...
> 
> I'm sure I'll gripe about Rowling using tantalizing details like this to sell future books... as I stand in line to pay for them.





It can be argued that the end of one generation's story is the beginning of the next generation's story.  By showing the beginning of their kids' story it illustrates that Harry's story is done.


----------



## Hijinks (Aug 2, 2007)

> I wanted Harry to show some cleverness, ingenuity and real potential. Instead we see Hermione doing all of the spell casting, solving all of the problems and taking charge of all of the situations.




I think perhaps part of it is that Hermoine has emerged from the stories as a strong role model for young girls.  I've seen advice columnists refer parents to the novels and have their daughters read them to get an idea of what a strong, capable girl is like, rather than a vapid twit.  So perhaps Rowling wanted to make sure that Hermoine remained very strong, and perhaps took it too far, to the point where she was taking all of Harry's capabilities.

Or perhaps she's just over-enforcing the idea of friends being all-important, so that Harry couldn't have achieved anything without his friends.


----------



## Psionicist (Aug 5, 2007)

WayneLigon said:
			
		

> The normal and Wizarding worlds barely intersect, though. They sent one guy to protect the muggle Prime Minister but that was it. The Ministry of Magic kinda goes it's own way and stays out of the mundane's realm and visa-versa. I doubt that if the Prime Minister really had any effect on the Ministry of Magic that he's have allowed it's excesses in the latter books. He seems to know that it exists, but that's about it.




Don't forget the first chapter of book 6. The only wizard the muggle prime minister really liked was Kingsley after all. I can see the Ministry of Magic and Prime Minister relationship increasing now which would fit the "new ministry" clarification.


----------



## Mistwell (Aug 7, 2007)

Vocenoctum said:
			
		

> Of course, funny enough, Harry never had all three at the same time, so...
> 
> Some centaur will be wandering around and find a resurrection stone!




You don't have to have them all at one time.  You have to be the master of all of them at one time.  Which Harry was.


----------



## Vocenoctum (Aug 8, 2007)

Mistwell said:
			
		

> You don't have to have them all at one time.  You have to be the master of all of them at one time.  Which Harry was.




I dunno, the only one that had "mastery" was the Wand, the Ring certainly wasn't mastered in any meaningful way, and anyone could use the cloak.


----------



## Mistwell (Aug 8, 2007)

Vocenoctum said:
			
		

> I dunno, the only one that had "mastery" was the Wand, the Ring certainly wasn't mastered in any meaningful way, and anyone could use the cloak.




The ring was mastered.  He was the first to be able to use it.  Dumbledore told him he had mastered it, in the dream.  As for the cloak, he was the master of it as well, and Dumbledore told him it was his until he handed it down to his next ancestor, as it had been handed down to him.

I wasn't speculating, Dumbledore even says Harry was able to master them, where Dumbledore had not been able to.


----------



## Vocenoctum (Aug 8, 2007)

Mistwell said:
			
		

> The ring was mastered.  He was the first to be able to use it.  Dumbledore told him he had mastered it, in the dream.  As for the cloak, he was the master of it as well, and Dumbledore told him it was his until he handed it down to his next ancestor, as it had been handed down to him.
> 
> I wasn't speculating, Dumbledore even says Harry was able to master them, where Dumbledore had not been able to.




Assuming you buy the whole thing, then you buy it. If you don't, then you don't. The Wand had an obvious effect for the master, the other items didn't. Not sure how the ring "passes" ownership, it was never taken or given consistently and most of the folks that had it didn't even know what it was or did. The fact that the ring probably wasn't a Hallow until the idea was created for Book7 also handily explains why no one ever used it.

In addition, "mastering" the three had no additional benefit or importance to the story. Heck, the ring's effect seemed added just to justify that it did something. The invisibility cloak worked the same regardless of it being mastered or not.


----------



## billd91 (Aug 8, 2007)

Vocenoctum said:
			
		

> In addition, "mastering" the three had no additional benefit or importance to the story. Heck, the ring's effect seemed added just to justify that it did something. The invisibility cloak worked the same regardless of it being mastered or not.




Perhaps no major importance to the story, but importance to Harry's intellectual development, yes. Harry's use of the ring, in essence to summon the shades of his dear departed as comforting and strengthening company rather than for blatantly selfish or dangerous reasons, indicated his intellectual maturity (as well as his 'mastery' of the item's true and safe utility) and his mastery over himself. It's a step in his journey to conquering Voldemort by conquering his fear and instinct to avoid death.


----------



## Mistwell (Aug 8, 2007)

Vocenoctum said:
			
		

> Assuming you buy the whole thing, then you buy it. If you don't, then you don't. The Wand had an obvious effect for the master, the other items didn't. Not sure how the ring "passes" ownership, it was never taken or given consistently and most of the folks that had it didn't even know what it was or did. The fact that the ring probably wasn't a Hallow until the idea was created for Book7 also handily explains why no one ever used it.
> 
> In addition, "mastering" the three had no additional benefit or importance to the story. Heck, the ring's effect seemed added just to justify that it did something. The invisibility cloak worked the same regardless of it being mastered or not.




The ring summoned the ghosts that were able to hold off the dementors without the need for Harry to call a Patronus, which would have given away his position too early.  The ghosts also gave Harry the will to carry on with the task of knowingly walking into death.  It seemed pretty critical to me.


----------



## Vocenoctum (Aug 8, 2007)

billd91 said:
			
		

> Perhaps no major importance to the story, but importance to Harry's intellectual development, yes. Harry's use of the ring, in essence to summon the shades of his dear departed as comforting and strengthening company rather than for blatantly selfish or dangerous reasons, indicated his intellectual maturity (as well as his 'mastery' of the item's true and safe utility) and his mastery over himself. It's a step in his journey to conquering Voldemort by conquering his fear and instinct to avoid death.




True, as literary elements they served a purpose, but their addition at the end of the story and sudden added importance detracted a bit from it, IMO. It would have better served the story to have used older elements than to add new stuff, or rather reveal new properties to previously mentioned stuff.


----------



## Vocenoctum (Aug 8, 2007)

Mistwell said:
			
		

> The ring summoned the ghosts that were able to hold off the dementors without the need for Harry to call a Patronus, which would have given away his position too early.  The ghosts also gave Harry the will to carry on with the task of knowingly walking into death.  It seemed pretty critical to me.




Was he afraid of revealing his position? Sure they gave him a morale boost, even if all they were doing was sending him to his death, but then he'd already accepted what had to be done, and adding an item to augment his own will in the process isn't exactly reinforcing the journey that Harry took, relying on props to win doesn't really add much.

Again though, there was no mastering the cloak, and the ring's "mastering" wasn't much of anything. No one else apparently even tried to use it. Only the Wand was given a real, direct method of determining mastery, the rest were never really called out.


----------



## Ilium (Aug 8, 2007)

Vocenoctum said:
			
		

> Was he afraid of revealing his position? Sure they gave him a morale boost, even if all they were doing was sending him to his death, but then he'd already accepted what had to be done, and adding an item to augment his own will in the process isn't exactly reinforcing the journey that Harry took, relying on props to win doesn't really add much.
> 
> Again though, there was no mastering the cloak, and the ring's "mastering" wasn't much of anything. No one else apparently even tried to use it. Only the Wand was given a real, direct method of determining mastery, the rest were never really called out.



 The thing about the stone is that previous users had tried to bring back their dead loved ones.  To defeat death.  Harry was able to understand that that wasn't possible.  He just wanted a reminder of their presence to help him make the journey himself.  That's what made him the stone's master.

As far as the cloak, I think it's just a matter of him getting it legitimately (as the heir to the line that had been handing it down).


----------



## Donovan Morningfire (Aug 8, 2007)

Vocenoctum said:
			
		

> Again though, there was no mastering the cloak, and the ring's "mastering" wasn't much of anything. No one else apparently even tried to use it. Only the Wand was given a real, direct method of determining mastery, the rest were never really called out.



Well, the only person we really see using the cloak in the books is it's rightful owner, Harry.  He loans it out a few times to his friends, but I think it was kinda like Hermoine letting Harry borrow her wand after his was broken; the cloak probably worked for the borrowers, but not as well as it would work for Harry.

The stone is a bit tricker, but it could very well be that it's true nature was unknown when it was placed in the ring.  Grandpa Gaunt thought it was a coat of arms, so it's likely that in the centuries between when the stone was created and modern times, its magical properties were lost or forgotten to all but a select few.  Maybe it was just the fact of using it that made one master of the stone.  Or how it was used.  From the story Hermoine read and Dumbledore's words, most people wanted to use the stone to selfishly bring people back from the dead.  Harry used it to asking for some moral support at the time when he needed it most.  As he viewed, it wasn't so much fetching the dead as the dead fetching him.  Maybe intent made all the difference?

Could very well be that we're a bunch of adults over-rationalizing a book aimed at a teenage audience, looking for patterns and reasons that simply don't exist.


----------



## Ilium (Aug 8, 2007)

Donovan Morningfire said:
			
		

> Could very well be that we're a bunch of adults over-rationalizing a book aimed at a teenage audience, looking for patterns and reasons that simply don't exist.




Hmm.  I think we have it! 

One other point, though: Harry did drop the stone.  He left it behind, realizing it had no value for him.  Maybe that's what made him its master in the end.

Very zen.


----------



## Vocenoctum (Aug 8, 2007)

Donovan Morningfire said:
			
		

> the cloak probably worked for the borrowers, but not as well as it would work for Harry.



I'm reasonably sure others used it without his permission also, but it's not a big deal. The cloaks "unique" power seemed to simply be that it didn't wear out/ degrade.



> Maybe it was just the fact of using it that made one master of the stone.  Or how it was used.



I think "mastering" was just a bad choice of words, since I'm not sure of the intended purpose. For example, it's possible that he mastered death in some fashion that let him not die, but I'm pretty sure the not-dying was a function of him being Vold's Horcrux-lite, so that's out...

I can see them as literary items to show his growth as a character, but then needing to rely on the stone to do what needed doing seems to diminish it somewhat...



> Could very well be that we're a bunch of adults over-rationalizing a book aimed at a teenage audience, looking for patterns and reasons that simply don't exist.




That's a given. 
Like I said before, Book7 worked fine as a cap to the series, but as a stand alone book I think it was sub-par. Still good enough, but missing something.


----------



## Donovan Morningfire (Aug 9, 2007)

Vocenoctum said:
			
		

> Like I said before, Book7 worked fine as a cap to the series, but as a stand alone book I think it was sub-par. Still good enough, but missing something.



I think from GoF onwards, Rowling wasn't writing them as individual books, but to be taken as part of the series, and was heavily linked to HBP, which was essentially ESB to DH's RotJ (just with centaurs instead of Ewoks).

That's the inherent problem with series, is that they rely on using prior installments as building blocks.  If someone with no knowledge of the Potterverse were to pick up Deathly Hallows, they'd probably think it was a piece of utter garbage since they'd have no real way to determine the relevance of what's going on.

The first two Potter books could stand on their own merits, becuase I think at that point Rowling wasn't 100% certain she was going to be able to publish the entire thing.  Kinda like how Lucas made ANH able to stand alone since he too wasn't sure if he was going to be able to make the rest of the films.


----------



## Mistwell (Aug 9, 2007)

Vocenoctum said:
			
		

> Was he afraid of revealing his position? Sure they gave him a morale boost, even if all they were doing was sending him to his death, but then he'd already accepted what had to be done, and adding an item to augment his own will in the process isn't exactly reinforcing the journey that Harry took, relying on props to win doesn't really add much.
> 
> Again though, there was no mastering the cloak, and the ring's "mastering" wasn't much of anything. No one else apparently even tried to use it. Only the Wand was given a real, direct method of determining mastery, the rest were never really called out.




I'm sorry my mistake...it wasn't an issue of giving away his position to early, it was an issue that Harry thinks in the book that he doesn't have the will to conjure a patronus at that moment I believe.

He doesn't fully accept what he has to do until the ghosts talk to him about death.  

He did master the cloak, since Dumbledore says it was properly handed down to him, much as he will have to hand it down to another.

Dumbledore tried to use the ring, and it cost him his life.  What do you mean nobody even tried to use it?  He says only Harry was able to master the ring.

I guess I am going to have to pull the book out and start quoting. I am pretty sure Dumbledore spells all this stuff out, that only Harry had mastered all three items.


----------



## Vocenoctum (Aug 10, 2007)

Mistwell said:
			
		

> I'm sorry my mistake...it wasn't an issue of giving away his position to early, it was an issue that Harry thinks in the book that he doesn't have the will to conjure a patronus at that moment I believe.



Yeah, I remember he couldn't call the will up to call the patronus. This falls under using the stone as a crutch though, for me. It's like in Heroes, Hiro's constant gaining and losing confidence just wears thin for me after the 13th time.





> He did master the cloak, since Dumbledore says it was properly handed down to him, much as he will have to hand it down to another.




I think it's just muddled terminology, the Wand was the only one that could be "mastered", and it had additional capabilities for the True Wielder. The cape worked the same for everyone who had it, and the ring didn't work for anyone because no one seemed to realize what it was.

Heck, I'm not sure why the Stone wasn't destroyed. Or, if it wasn't "destroyed", why it was no longer a Horcrux, but it's not important.



> Dumbledore tried to use the ring, and it cost him his life.  What do you mean nobody even tried to use it?  He says only Harry was able to master the ring.




Dumbledore was hit with the curse, but AFAIK it was a protective curse to safeguard the Horcrux. 



> I guess I am going to have to pull the book out and start quoting. I am pretty sure Dumbledore spells all this stuff out, that only Harry had mastered all three items.




If you're bored, it passes the time.


----------



## billd91 (Aug 11, 2007)

Vocenoctum said:
			
		

> I can see them as literary items to show his growth as a character, but then needing to rely on the stone to do what needed doing seems to diminish it somewhat...




But it also shows that he's even gone beyond Dumbledore's capacity in at least one way. It shows how exceptional Harry has become.


----------



## Victim (Aug 11, 2007)

Given the origin story of the stone, I think Harry's mastery was that he could draw strength from the ability to contact the dead, instead of hurting himself in an attempt to bring back the past (dead lovers, a slain sister, etc) like other users of the Ressurection Stone.


----------



## Vocenoctum (Aug 12, 2007)

Victim said:
			
		

> Given the origin story of the stone, I think Harry's mastery was that he could draw strength from the ability to contact the dead, instead of hurting himself in an attempt to bring back the past (dead lovers, a slain sister, etc) like other users of the Ressurection Stone.




I think the problem with this and the post above, is that there was no mention really of other users of the stone. Dumbledore's use is undocumented, as it were. Did he fail to use it because of the curse on the Horcrux? If so, it doesn't really mean he failed. From what I recall of the conversation, Dumbledore speaks more of how he WOULD HAVE used it, had he used it...


----------



## WarlockLord (Aug 13, 2007)

I didn't like the final battle.  Harry dies.  Harry goes to a train station, like in the Matrix.  Long talk.  Harry comes back.  Voldy's curse rebounds again.  

If Harry is so into Unforgivables, can't he just Avada Kedavra Voldemort? Voldemort falling for the same crap again is dumb.  I know he doesn't understand love and all, but why not stop using killing curses (logic: they didn't work the first time, Harry really hasn't died.  I know he 'died' when he went back to the Train Station, but he came back.  Logically, this would seem to prove that Harry is immune to Avada Kedavra) and Petrify (according to CoS, there are spells that do this) or imprison under the earth...something.  

And why, oh why are the zombies called Inferi? 

And every internet theory turned out to be true! Yay! I didn't even need to buy the book!

And why the McGuffins?  The Deathly Hallows (at first I thought this meant a fight in a church) could have easily referred to the Horcruxes.  If Harry is the Chosen One (like Ash in the Pokemon movies...why did I ever watch them?), shouldn't he have heard about them before?  And the Elder Wand is just TOO cliched McGuffinesque.  An item of ultimate power? Please.


----------



## Vocenoctum (Aug 13, 2007)

WarlockLord said:
			
		

> I didn't like the final battle.  Harry dies.  Harry goes to a train station, like in the Matrix.  Long talk.  Harry comes back.  Voldy's curse rebounds again.
> 
> If Harry is so into Unforgivables, can't he just Avada Kedavra Voldemort? Voldemort falling for the same crap again is dumb.  I know he doesn't understand love and all, but why not stop using killing curses (logic: they didn't work the first time, Harry really hasn't died.  I know he 'died' when he went back to the Train Station, but he came back.  Logically, this would seem to prove that Harry is immune to Avada Kedavra) and Petrify (according to CoS, there are spells that do this) or imprison under the earth...something.




Woah woah woah. Back up a step here. The Dark Lord was a ruthless powerful magician willing to split his soul into 7 parts for unspecified power.

When did he ever seem intelligent to you? I mean, that's like saying Dumbledore was a good headmaster, it's simply not true, and never evident, so stop with the assumptions! 



> And why, oh why are the zombies called Inferi?



Why did they make the killing curse sound like Abra Cadabra, did she not think there'd be a movie and ruin a dramatic moment, as Wormtail blasts Cedric to death, and the audience is waiting from him to pull a rabbit out of a hat?



> And every internet theory turned out to be true! Yay! I didn't even need to buy the book!



Not every theory, my theory was a meteorite would come down and smash into Hogwarts right at the climactic battle, slaying all and leaving only the female students alive to found a new society of magical succubi preying on humanity.



> And why the McGuffins?  The Deathly Hallows (at first I thought this meant a fight in a church) could have easily referred to the Horcruxes.  If Harry is the Chosen One (like Ash in the Pokemon movies...why did I ever watch them?), shouldn't he have heard about them before?  And the Elder Wand is just TOO cliched McGuffinesque.  An item of ultimate power? Please.




Because, though she's a good storyteller, Rowling is not the best writer/ plotter. Supposedly her followup book will be something entirely different, and I wonder if she's got the sorcerers stones to pull it off. Deathly Hallows was a long time coming, but has the feeling of something the author just had to get through to finish it out, rather than some grand story that needed a penultimate conclusion.


----------



## xrpsuzi (Aug 14, 2007)

Vocenoctum said:
			
		

> Yeah, I remember he couldn't call the will up to call the patronus. This falls under using the stone as a crutch though, for me. It's like in Heroes, Hiro's constant gaining and losing confidence just wears thin for me after the 13th time.




The only time Harry failed to produce a patronus was early in the book when he was wearing the locket. That was what prompted them to swtich off on locket duty. In the end, the book seemed to intimate that he (1)didn't want to give away his position as he approached the forest (2)wanted to talk to those who he had lost in the battle against Voltemort before he died. But I could believe that Harry might have difficulties summoning a patronus at that point because you have focus on a really happy memory/piece of you in order to summon a patronus.



> I think it's just muddled terminology, the Wand was the only one that could be "mastered", and it had additional capabilities for the True Wielder. The cape worked the same for everyone who had it, and the ring didn't work for anyone because no one seemed to realize what it was.




In the book, the wielder of all three controls the Deathly Hallows. Harry (by the logic presented at the end of the book) was the elder wands rightful master for the whole of book 7. He (and Voltimort) just didn't know it.  He already had the cloak and Harry being the descendent of the brother that had the cloak was also a nod in that direction as well. Therefore the last of the items that rightfully made Harry the master of death hallows is the ring (stone). He couldn't get his hands on it until he spoke the words heading toward the Forbidden Forest.

The whole mastering thing goes into wand-magic and dueling. The wand gets to choose the wizard, except in a duel. That was what was throwing Voltimort off the whole time--he thought Snape won mastery because of Snape's deception, when really it was Draco.



> Heck, I'm not sure why the Stone wasn't destroyed. Or, if it wasn't "destroyed", why it was no longer a Horcrux, but it's not important.




The book never gives the sequence of events--it just shows a cracked ring (that is no longer a horacrux) and a wounded Dumbledore with Snape giving him a curative. Dumbledore could have easily tried to use the Hallows application of the stone before destroying it as a horacrux. Perhaps swayed by his overwhelming grief/guilt about his sister and mother in conjunction with the effect of the horacrux.

All in all, it was a fun read, and it was nice parallel to Harry becoming an adult to see the wizard world through adult eyes (rather than view school life through adolescent eye like the previous books).

-suzi


----------



## Vocenoctum (Aug 14, 2007)

suzi yee said:
			
		

> In the book, the wielder of all three controls the Deathly Hallows. Harry (by the logic presented at the end of the book) was the elder wands rightful master for the whole of book 7. He (and Voltimort) just didn't know it.



Not quite, he doesn't defeat Draco until a good ways in. The logic that defeating Draco when Draco didn't even have possession of the wand (sure, he had "ownership") is odd too.




> He already had the cloak and Harry being the descendent of the brother that had the cloak was also a nod in that direction as well. Therefore the last of the items that rightfully made Harry the master of death hallows is the ring (stone). He couldn't get his hands on it until he spoke the words heading toward the Forbidden Forest.
> 
> The whole mastering thing goes into wand-magic and dueling. The wand gets to choose the wizard, except in a duel. That was what was throwing Voltimort off the whole time--he thought Snape won mastery because of Snape's deception, when really it was Draco.




Yeah, everything's been said before there. The Mastering Process for the wand does not apply to the other items, and there is no sign that the process of "mastering" either other item had any tangible benefits. Being Master of the Deathly Hallows is also meaningless in any tangible sense.

It's like if he was proud of being "The Boy Who Lived", it just really doesn't make a difference. The Stone was only powerful as a plot device to solve a dillema created specifically for it to solve.


----------



## ShadowX (Sep 8, 2007)

I am surprised by all the love for this book.  Even my girlfriend who, at least up until this book, treasured every word ever written about Harry Potter, thought this book failed as a capstone to this enormous series.

First, let me say that my fondness for the series always stemmed from its boarding school elements combined with the quirky magic setting.  The plot has always been a banal Chosen One story (they even christen Harry with that title!) mixed with some Nazi Germany tones (yet another overused theme) and mostly stereotypical characters.  Obviously, with most of Deathly Hallows taking place outside of Hogwarts my favorite part of the series was quite noticeably absent.  In its place we get a very trite and predictable fantasy story; ironic considering her reported disdain for most fantasy.

The major flaw separating Deathly Hallows from its predecessors is that Rowling apparently stopped treating her juvenile readers as intelligent.  Deathly Hallows is full of contrived plot points and retrofitting of the author's design and many other events that require similar convolution from the reader to justify.  Why is Voldemort able to kill Harry with the Elder Wand and yet later it has no effect?  Which only brings on many other questions about how "mastery" of the wand works.  The whole "Harry is a Horcrux" and the wand connection required some fierce and confusing explanation that really served no purpose and would have been better left alone as we already have multiple reasons for Harry's Chosen One status.  How was Dumbledore able to defeat Grindelwald if the latter had the Elder Wand?  Others have noted more in this thread.  

However, the worst is the utter stupidity of Voldemort.  It was hard to consider him a credible threat at all by the end of the seventh book because he shows himself a complete buffoon, as do most of the Death Eaters I might add.  Of course, the retort that I will likely receive is that he succumbed to hubris.  This hubris must be the most inconsistent and yet overwhelming pride I have ever seen.  Even then, a modicum of intelligence from Voldemort could easily have thwarted Potter and friends.  We have Horcruxes lying around for the taking and a Voldemort who leaves his mind accessible to Harry, showing him his plans and the locations of the Horcruxes.  I mean thinking the diadem safe in the Room of Requirement requires alarming idiocy.

Other things spring to mind as well.  While the magical consistency of the Potter world always teetered on the brink of ruin, this book brings it crashing down.  Harry fires six wands at once.  Dueling seems to negate any advantages of a more powerful wizard and reduces it to a fight of reflexes.  While most of the time the faculty at Hogwarts, really all adults, seemed far beyond the abilities of anything taught at Hogwarts, the students had little trouble competing with them in the last few books.  Particularly disappointing were obvious spells easily within the realms of possibility hinted at in the books that never appeared.  Instead dueling just consists of shield charms and your preferred curse.  Quite mundane and boring.

Somehow we are also treated to a Dumbledore summation; apparently bad plot devices persist after death.  I always abhorred this in past books and it was particularly pointless in this book as Dumbledore actually reveals very little we didn't already know.  I hated that, as so often happened in the series, Hermione carries the trio through danger until Harry gets a chance to be brave at the climax.  Ron, as usual, gets thrown a few bones of heroism, but mostly just engages in the insufferable whining he has proven so good at it in the past.  Rowling also continued the tradition of making the trio completely clueless and incompetent until some random event presents them with the appropriate information to continue.  I have a feeling that Rowling would make terrible DM.  The list goes on, though I will point out that some of the more urgent scenes were rendered confusing by rather tumultuous and obscuring prose.

Of course, some scenes were very enjoyable, there just should have been more for the climax of a rather hefty seven book series.  Snape, of course, remains the coolest character she developed in the entire series, his memories and Harry's kind words about him in the epilogue comprise the most poignant moments in the book for me.  However, his death was an atrocious piece of writing and plotting.  Most of the deaths were very poorly done; I didn't even realize Tonks and Lupin were dead until pages after the actual event.  Sure, throw in a few to amplify the grimness of the situation and heighten anxiety, but most of your major characters deserve more than an inglorious death for little purpose.  The deaths of Dumbledore and Sirius for such major characters were especially poorly done; the latter done in by Bellatrix and the former summarily defeated after acquiring a fake Horcrux.  The various character deaths felt more like a consequence of Rowling's aspirations for the series than a contribution to the story.  Seriously, if after 7 books you can't evoke even watery eyes from me, you have utterly failed as writer.

I didn't really like the artificial sullying of Dumbledore's name and the pages wasted to Harry's turmoil over these mostly inconsequential details.  Far more effective in humanizing Dumbledore was the information that Dumbledore had tried on the Resurrection Stone despite knowing the potency of the Horcrux.  

Mrs. Weasly assaulting Bellatrix with the only swear word in the entire series also brought a laugh and exhilaration.

Yet on the whole, I expected far more than profligate scenes and shaky and uninteresting plot constructions.  The epilogue sure didn't help because this is not a series that needed an ambiguous ending.  Part of a bildungsroman story is the satisfaction of seeing the result of the characters' growth.  This is even more true for Harry Potter where so much of a reader's enjoyment is tied up in the characters.  And really, after seven books I want more closure, even if it is a little strained.

I could continue writing, which is odd because I am not even that vested in the series, but it would just be me venting about a horribly wasted opportunity.


----------



## Morrus (Sep 8, 2007)

I recently read the entire series (for the first time).  The biggest mipression that I came away with was that Harry was a really unlikeable character.  All the way thorugh, he's obnoxious and petulant, frequently acts aggressively towards his friends and generally proves to be a thoroughly unpleasant individual.  Ron and Hermione, on the other hand, are far more likeable.

I gather we're supposed to like Harry; but I didn't.


----------



## Wolv0rine (Sep 12, 2007)

Having just finished Deathly Hallows this morning, I'm left with 1.5 glaring questions.

1: (I suppose it's half answered earlier in the thread, which is why the list is 1.5 questions) Why is the fact that Harry's eyes are just like Lily's so damned important?  It's mentioned again and again through the series, and it just doesn't seem strong enough to be that it reminded Snape of her.
2: What was so damned important about Lily's wand being good at Charms or Enchantment or whatever it was???  Didn't Rowling herself say more than once that that was a really big, important clue-thing?  It never came up, or did I miss it?

The book was okay, I actually liked the aimless camping/wandering...  because they DIDN'T have any idea what they were doing, nor had they any real solid clues at the beginning of their quest for the Horcruxes on where to look.  If they had spent less time trying to figure out what to do, it would have seemed too easy.  Myself, I tend to get attached to a series I follow far enough, so the epilogue for me was just cruelly short.  I'd be happy to follow her through another 7 books or more and hang out with the characters for a long time more.  Sure, Harry himself is a petulant idiot charmed by fate...  but the other characters are delightful and I like them.


----------



## sniffles (Sep 14, 2007)

Morrus said:
			
		

> I recently read the entire series (for the first time).  The biggest mipression that I came away with was that Harry was a really unlikeable character.  All the way thorugh, he's obnoxious and petulant, frequently acts aggressively towards his friends and generally proves to be a thoroughly unpleasant individual.  Ron and Hermione, on the other hand, are far more likeable.
> 
> I gather we're supposed to like Harry; but I didn't.



Curious. While I could agree with that assessment to a certain extent, I see Harry as having many admirable qualities, such as his determination and his loyalty. And in the final book he grows up and becomes a truly admirable person. He's able to forgive, to care, and to be self-sacrificing in order to save others. He never seemed to me to have enough personality flaws to dislike him. He was just a kid doing the stupid things kids do - especially a kid who never had any positive adult role-models in his formative years. 

In fact, it's pretty impressive that he grew to be as decent as he was, considering he didn't receive any love or kindness during his early childhood.


----------

