Harry Potter, Deathly Hallows (spoilers allowed)

I just recently (middle of last year) started reading Easterbrook. What's his story?

 

She did break his wand.

 

Yea, but that wasn't in the tent . . .

 

Maybe she just polished it in the tent

 

If anybody wants to do something fun, replace the word "wand" with "penis" when you read the stories. Quality.

 

I apologize for defiling Harry's series

 

He's an academic who writes for The Atlantic Monthly, The New Republic and The Washington Monthly and is a visiting fellow at the Brookings Institution (according to his Web site). His brother is a judge with one of the circuit courts.
His column, which I've read since the start on Slate, moved to NFL.com and ESPN.com.
He had the controversy last year (or was it the year before?) when he made a comment some called antisemitic. It was ironic, because he actually attends a church where Christians and Jews worship together, and he has mentioned religion and Jews many times and never had any problem before that.
I love his stuff, though it does always run pretty long.

 

You can find a bio, all be it a small one, here: http://www.greggeasterbrook.com/bio.html
Basically he's supposedly a braniac. His big claim to fame is being a fellow for the Brookings Institue, a research and policy think-tank kinda thing.
Sometimes he's interesting, sometimes he's preachy, sometimes he's blatantly wrong. But he alway writes really long, so, yeah...
As far as sports go, he's very anti-blitz and pro-cheerleaders.

 

I've noticed the length, but I usually really like everything in it. As for religion, does he push it much or is it just something that pops up? The one time before I saw it, I thought it was tastefully written but wasn't sure how often it was like that.

 

I wouldn't say he pushes religion. It's usually about like the Harry Potter stuff was there, if it comes up at all.

 

Okay, back to Harry Potter, pretty much all my thoughts were touched on by other people, unless something pops up to me while I'm writing this.
I thought the 19 years later was pretty lame. I would have rather had more about just after the fight with Voldemort and killed the epilogue, but whatever.
The camping scenes dragged a little bit, but it let you see how the world was going to hell in a handbasket while they struggled to figure out what to do.
I could have used more Ginny, but I can see why JKR would want to stick with the Big 3.
I'm very glad that Snape turned out to be good. The idea of him being bad seemed totally incongruent with Dumbledore's character, because he always sees things 16 steps ahead of the game, so to miss Snape being evil would have been going against who he was the rest of the series.
What did people think about Dumbledore's backstory? I personally liked it. It shows you how remarkable Harry really is, being as selfless as he is (even if he could be a whiny bitch a times). Even though D. could do magic Harry can't dream of, it shows the ways in which he was a better wizard and why he and not D. could beat V.
One question I have that I may have missed, since D. battled Grindelwald who had the Elder Wand, and D. won, it's pretty obvious that that's not an unbeatable wand then, right?
There were other things I was going to say, but got sidetracked for an hour by people finally returning phone calls, so I can't remember.
All in all, a very enjoyable read.

 

Just finished reading it today. Good story and great series. Can't wait to see how they translate it to the big screen, especially since, in the movies, they already killed the basilisk. JKR didn't have that happening until the end of this book. Hmm...