Harry Potter, Deathly Hallows (spoilers allowed)

Re: Harry Potter, Deathly Hollows (spoilers allowed)

My 13-year-old daughter sat next to me on Saturday reading the book as we drove to grandma's house for the weekend. She gasped audibly several times, had a look of terror, of humor, or anxiety and grief many times.

That to me was all I needed to know the book was well worth the $21 we plunked down at B&N at midnight.

I finished it Monday afternoon when I finally got hold of my copy on Sunday. Parts great, parts good, parts not so good -- as discussed above. Still enjoyed the book down to the last few pages.

 

Re: Harry Potter, Deathly Hollows (spoilers allowed)

No, I think she wanted it to be pretty clear. Everytime she was asked about it her answer was always along the lines of "the answer is already there, you just have to pay attention to the details of book 6." I think that is why didn't spend as much time on him in 7, she knew that most people knew he was good and she just wanted to provide the backstory. HBP was Snape's book and book 7 was much more concerned with Harry and the Horcruxes. Just my opinion, but I think the way she handled Snape in 7 was just fine (aside from his lame death, I assumed he would die in a more heroic way) and I loved the chapter, "The Prince's Tale."

 

Re: Harry Potter, Deathly Hollows (spoilers allowed)

I liked the book a lot. Read it in a day and a half. Would've been quicker, but have been busy laying out a magazine at work.

Anyway, my thoughts:

1) Snape's death was lame. This guy is built up as hating Harry, and things are dropped to make us thing he's evil. Then he just gets killed alone in a room with Voldy with only Harry watching. And not even putting up a fight. Just sniveling "Let me get Potter" like a coward. Snape was no coward. The guy had put himself in danger for a good chunk of his adult life to spy on Voldemort for Dumbledore. He deserved at least to have been pullling his wand instead of getting punked out.

2) At first I was disappointed in the epilogue, but now I don't mind so much. Would've liked some detail about their lives since Voldemort's death, but I can live without it. Leaves more to the imagination.

3) I knew it'd be a bloodbath, but it is kind of weird not seeing a major character get offed. And I'm not talking the Big Three. I figured Hagrid was toast, but the second he got carried off by the spiders with no body left behind, I was sure he was going to make it. I've been taking the soap opera view to this whole series -- If there's no body, they ain't dead for sure. (Why I kept thinking Sirius might make it back.)

4) I liked the scene where Harry was walking to his death. Good stuff. But I had one serious issue. When Harry used the stone, he brought back four people -- his parents, Sirius and Lupin. My question is, why Lupin? And if Lupin, why not D-dore right there, too? Harry was closer to Dumbledore than Lupin, so if this was supposed to be people he loved and who loved him, then why not Dumbledore, too? I know she was saving Dumbledore for King's Cross, and my wife thinks Dumbley being there would've led to Harry asking a bunch of questions. But JKR still could have had him there and dealt with that. Just have Harry start to ask questions, then Dumbledore say, "All in due time, Harry." Then Harry thinking that D-dore's right, they'd have eternity to talk after Harry died. It just seemed weird having Lupin there without some of the others.

5) I liked the book, but it's not my favorite of the series. (I rank the last two higher.0 A few things seemed too convenient and rather anticlimactic for me. Like Crabbe having been taught one of the only things that destroys Horcruxes. And Wormtail's death. And the destruction of the Hufflepuff Horcrux. Just seems like when these things are built up as the big quest for Harry, the destruction of each one should be described. Instead, she took half the book to destroy one, makes that dramatic, then offs a couple with quick, easy, "oh-crap-I've-written-650-pages-and-have-to-destroy-four-Horcruxes-still" ways. Honestly, I was hoping dragon's fire would've been used on the Hufflepuff Cup, then left things open for the last three to be done in at Hogwarts just before and during the final battle.

6) I was touched by some of the stuff on the periphery more than the main stuff. Like Doby's death. Harry digging the grave, and the others coming to help. That was good stuff. And Kreacher. I HATED him, then in like three pages I loved the guy. That was good writing. And Neville. I wanted to see him kill Bellatrix, too, but seeing him as the new leader at Hogwarts was great. And Percy showing up when he did and like he did, then joking during the battle. Good stuff. And I loved Mrs. Weasley dealing with Bellatrix, too, though it seems at times that Rowling has a tendency to place more stock in a mother's love and protectiveness than in a father's (Harry's life saved by mom's sacrifice, not dad and mom; Mrs. Weasley has big part at end because she's upset about daughter, but dad just watches). As a dad that kind of irked me.

7) Oh, and for everyone wondering, Harry's parents were drug dealers. You think there's some fine Colombian cocaine, you ain't done nothing until you've tried wizard coke. That stuff will mess you up.

 

Re: Harry Potter, Deathly Hollows (spoilers allowed)

I just finished it. I don't have a lot to say except that I cried like a little girl.

And can we change the title of the thread to Hallows?

 

I thought Snapes part and death was perfect. His big sacrifice was that his bravery would go unkown by those he was trying to help. If he had some dramatic death, that would undermine it.

I was irked a bit by the one horcrux seeming too much like the ring in the Lord of the Rings. Glad that was dealt with fairly quickly.

One small part that was good and that my sons pointed out (both read it before me) was when Harry and Ron saved Draco a second time and Ron punched him.

Book was a rollicking read. I have never seen so many people reading the same book in one week.

 

I completely agree on the "Lord of the Rings" part. I was thinking that over and over as I read it.
I think I've seen in an interview where Rowling said she never read LOTR, but the amount of things she has that are VERY similar is pretty incredible.

 

I'll agree, but in her defense, a lot is just general fantasy stuff.

 

Does it make me a heretic if I say the final battle between Harry and Voldy seemed a touch anti-climactic?

 

I see Rowling filled in some of the blanks that the epilogue didn't answer when she met with kids on the TODAY show.

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

 

True, but Tolkien is singularly responsible for a lot of stuff that is now just general fantasy stuff.

 

He is, but Rowling's hardly the first person to use that general fantasy stuff. R.A. Salvatore's been ripping it off for years. The kid who wrote Eragorn didn't even try to disguise teh fact he was ripping off Tolkein.

Rowling had enough orginal content that her work stands out more than most fantasy writing.

 

I agree. All I'm saying is, I find it hard to believe that she never read Tolkien.
Why do the Dementors look so much like Ringwraiths?
Wormtongue, wormtail.
The One Ring is similar to a Horcrux.
The list goes on.
I don't think she is a thief, but I don't believe she has never read Tolkien either.