Actually, Rowling loves Mr Weasley, she said in that interview that she was never capable of killing him, lol.
-
Check out the relaunch of our general collection, with classic designs and new ones by our very own Pissog!
-
Welcome to Smogon! Take a moment to read the Introduction to Smogon for a run-down on everything Smogon, and make sure you take some time to read the global rules.
Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows
- Thread starter Aeolus
- Start date
Actually, Rowling loves Mr Weasley, she said in that interview that she was never capable of killing him, lol.
I think if the book skipped 300 pages in the middle, it would be fantastic. As it stands, it is mediocre, especially since it seems to go from one event to another with no real continuity. The Epilogue, as has been stated, is dire, and the deaths are usually irrelevant. In the end, Lupin had to die, since Black, Potter, and Pettigrew also died, so it is somewhat symbolic. Plus, if Rowling ever finds herself short of enough cash to buy Canada, she can write 'Teddy Lupin and the Money-Launderers' to make a quick billion. In my cynical opinion, that's the reason for the orphaning. Of course, one might be less cynical, but for some reason the cynic is usually right.
Things that I wish had been addressed:
While Voldemort was defeated, the root causes of his rise to power and the rise of the Death Eater movement were left seemingly unaddressed (for the time being).
The fact is, among "pureblooded" wizarding families, there is a sense of superiority and arrogance, almost analogous to racialism. Look at the attitude of the Black and Malfoy famlies, look at the terminology used (Mudblood is depicted as the near-equivalent of the "n" word for those of African descent)
And this is an attiude that is built into every child of these families, including those who enter Slytherin House.
It was this ingrained "bloodism" that allowed the rise to power of Voldemort, just as the anti-Semitism ingrained into European society, particularly German society allowed the rise of National Socialism. This bloodism has not been addressed.
That is my main point.
Also, I feel a sense of pity for Tom Riddle - in that he, while being a horrible person and mass murderer, was so fucked up that my reaction to him is more like I would feel towards a wild animal than a evil human being.
And that is what he was, an animal. Because of his upbringing, he simply did not learn what it took to be "human" - he did not learn love, kindness, friendship, and so forth. Without those, all one is left with is "survival".
And what helps you survive? Power.
And magic gave Riddle the perfect way to gain power. Why did the Dark Arts interest him so? Because as opposed to the normal coursework of Hogwarts, the Dark Arts offered power, offered a way to overpower other people - people that may be a threat.
What this tells us is that humanity is not an ingrained trait - the capacity to attain it is there, but not the trait itself - it has to be learned, and Voldemort did NOT learn.
Finally:
I do not like Harry + Ginny. I felt it was rushed into being in Book 6 (and rushed out of being at the end) and it was not developed much in Book 7 (at least not as much as I would have liked). I feel that
1: it was sort of thrown together, it just *happened* and all of a sudden, Harry is madly in love with Ginny. Did I miss something - I didn't see any buildup at all to it.
2: There was simply no reason in my mind for the "I'm leaving you because I need to fight Voldemort - as if a breakup is going to STOP Voldemort from targeting her"
While Voldemort was defeated, the root causes of his rise to power and the rise of the Death Eater movement were left seemingly unaddressed (for the time being).
The fact is, among "pureblooded" wizarding families, there is a sense of superiority and arrogance, almost analogous to racialism. Look at the attitude of the Black and Malfoy famlies, look at the terminology used (Mudblood is depicted as the near-equivalent of the "n" word for those of African descent)
And this is an attiude that is built into every child of these families, including those who enter Slytherin House.
It was this ingrained "bloodism" that allowed the rise to power of Voldemort, just as the anti-Semitism ingrained into European society, particularly German society allowed the rise of National Socialism. This bloodism has not been addressed.
That is my main point.
Also, I feel a sense of pity for Tom Riddle - in that he, while being a horrible person and mass murderer, was so fucked up that my reaction to him is more like I would feel towards a wild animal than a evil human being.
And that is what he was, an animal. Because of his upbringing, he simply did not learn what it took to be "human" - he did not learn love, kindness, friendship, and so forth. Without those, all one is left with is "survival".
And what helps you survive? Power.
And magic gave Riddle the perfect way to gain power. Why did the Dark Arts interest him so? Because as opposed to the normal coursework of Hogwarts, the Dark Arts offered power, offered a way to overpower other people - people that may be a threat.
What this tells us is that humanity is not an ingrained trait - the capacity to attain it is there, but not the trait itself - it has to be learned, and Voldemort did NOT learn.
Finally:
I do not like Harry + Ginny. I felt it was rushed into being in Book 6 (and rushed out of being at the end) and it was not developed much in Book 7 (at least not as much as I would have liked). I feel that
1: it was sort of thrown together, it just *happened* and all of a sudden, Harry is madly in love with Ginny. Did I miss something - I didn't see any buildup at all to it.
2: There was simply no reason in my mind for the "I'm leaving you because I need to fight Voldemort - as if a breakup is going to STOP Voldemort from targeting her"
I'll argue against the "love with Ginny seemed rushed" idea. It more or less starts in the fifth book when Harry gets used to her over the summer and they become friends, when she leaves Harry on the train to be with her boyfriend he feels rather let down. Untouched throughout the rest of the book, yes, but it was there. Harry and Ginny are established as actual good friends, two years after saving her.
In book 6 its a bit of a recurring, although overshadowed theme due to the large amount of things going on. He pretty much starts feeling jealous that these other boys are going out with her, tries dismissing it as him feeling like a brother to her, and although it starts smaller it grows a bit through the book until the kiss scene.
And while a breakup won't stop Voldemort from targeting her, I think Harry believes it will stop Voldemort from targeting her FIRST.
In book 6 its a bit of a recurring, although overshadowed theme due to the large amount of things going on. He pretty much starts feeling jealous that these other boys are going out with her, tries dismissing it as him feeling like a brother to her, and although it starts smaller it grows a bit through the book until the kiss scene.
And while a breakup won't stop Voldemort from targeting her, I think Harry believes it will stop Voldemort from targeting her FIRST.
I don't really think the "final battle between Voldy and Harry was too short/lame" bit is applicable. Harry had been fighting Voldy on and off for sever years at that point, and Voldy is predictable. He always goes for the Avada Kedavra Kill against Harry, believing himself to be superior in every way.
Voldemort is the poster boy for pride commeth before the fall, although its reasonable to assume when you split your soul into seven parts you lose some sanity and intelligence as well, replacing it primarily with rage and cruelty.
Its almost funny in a way, how Voldemort's quest for immortality led him to a basically inhuman existence.
One of the things I would like to have explained more is the origin of something as horrid as Dementors. Nobody can forget the role those demons played. Did some wizard create them in a dark ritual long ago? It's disturbing, even in a purely fictional world, to think something that can suck your soul out merely IS and has always been around. Those things top Vampires as the scariest creature I can think of. At least with Vampires you become an avatar of the undead... the Dementors leave you as a soulless shell, and I doubt being injested by a Dementor leads to heaven. They were literrally explained as a physical manifestation of fear.
Voldemort is the poster boy for pride commeth before the fall, although its reasonable to assume when you split your soul into seven parts you lose some sanity and intelligence as well, replacing it primarily with rage and cruelty.
Its almost funny in a way, how Voldemort's quest for immortality led him to a basically inhuman existence.
One of the things I would like to have explained more is the origin of something as horrid as Dementors. Nobody can forget the role those demons played. Did some wizard create them in a dark ritual long ago? It's disturbing, even in a purely fictional world, to think something that can suck your soul out merely IS and has always been around. Those things top Vampires as the scariest creature I can think of. At least with Vampires you become an avatar of the undead... the Dementors leave you as a soulless shell, and I doubt being injested by a Dementor leads to heaven. They were literrally explained as a physical manifestation of fear.
Harry Potter was obviously an extraordinarily poorly written work regarding any type of superiority, whether racial, national, or religious.
And, mind you, it failed miserably in that regard. The only saving grace of Harry Potter is that it managed to appeal to various 6 to 21 year olds, and therefore sold a lot of money.
Harry Potter is the Bruce Lee of literature; it is nothing more than a name, failing quite significantly to add anything original or pragmatic to its respective field.
It is simply a successful business tool.
That said, I am one of the 6-21 year old fools, and I have to say Book 7 aggravated me. It seemed like Harry, Hermione, and Ron did not grow at all during this entire series...Though Neville and Dumbledore's characters certainly did.
And, mind you, it failed miserably in that regard. The only saving grace of Harry Potter is that it managed to appeal to various 6 to 21 year olds, and therefore sold a lot of money.
Harry Potter is the Bruce Lee of literature; it is nothing more than a name, failing quite significantly to add anything original or pragmatic to its respective field.
It is simply a successful business tool.
That said, I am one of the 6-21 year old fools, and I have to say Book 7 aggravated me. It seemed like Harry, Hermione, and Ron did not grow at all during this entire series...Though Neville and Dumbledore's characters certainly did.
oh yay! we can talk about harry potter now
did you hear, i got kicked out of borders on opening day because i shouted out "HERMIONE DIES!"
haha. i hope im still allowed back there =.=
but otherwise, harry potter has just become so general fantasy, there isnt anything special about it anymore after like, book 3
did you hear, i got kicked out of borders on opening day because i shouted out "HERMIONE DIES!"
haha. i hope im still allowed back there =.=
but otherwise, harry potter has just become so general fantasy, there isnt anything special about it anymore after like, book 3
This is precisely why this book was not intended for adults. What a pretentious asshole.
So I simply quietly mention that I had the spoilers downloaded on my computer and some lady threatened to break my kneecaps if I so as much utter another word. =/
Is it just me, or was the whole "R.A.B." thing predictable? I think most people guessed at Regulus and they were right.
I think the Hallows should have been talked about more, I mean, that's what the whole book is about right? But nooo, they introduce them halfway through the book.
Also: http://www.mugglenet.com/app/news/full_story/1156
An interview with JKR answering a lot of the questions you guys asked and more.
I think the Hallows should have been talked about more, I mean, that's what the whole book is about right? But nooo, they introduce them halfway through the book.
Also: http://www.mugglenet.com/app/news/full_story/1156
An interview with JKR answering a lot of the questions you guys asked and more.
Just a few extra thoughts, thought I'd answer this TMQ
Did anyone notice that in the 3rd book, there was the chapter "Moony, Wormtail, Padfoot, and Prongs" and that these guys die in reverse order? Coincidence...?
Also, how could you guys miss Lupin and Tonks dying? Do you guys just skim the book until you see something interesting happen and then read on (Although I myself have done this, I still noticed them two dead)
Did anyone notice that in the 3rd book, there was the chapter "Moony, Wormtail, Padfoot, and Prongs" and that these guys die in reverse order? Coincidence...?
Also, how could you guys miss Lupin and Tonks dying? Do you guys just skim the book until you see something interesting happen and then read on (Although I myself have done this, I still noticed them two dead)
I'm reading through the entire series again, in the beginning of the third book she got the author of A History of Magic wrong =P Never noticed as Bathilda Bagshot was never important until this book.
Also, I just realized while reading book 7 that "Floo Powder" is probably based off Santa Clause. Travelling by fireplaces/chimneys and stuff. Everything is based off some kind of myth after all.
Also, I just realized while reading book 7 that "Floo Powder" is probably based off Santa Clause. Travelling by fireplaces/chimneys and stuff. Everything is based off some kind of myth after all.
• What the heck is happening in the scene where Harry is "dead"? Dumbledore gives some garbled gibberish about Voldemort having Harry's blood in his veins, but there isn't so much as a morsel of explanation of how this allows Harry to survive a fatal blow, enter a zone between life and death, and choose which direction he goes. Sci-fi and fantasy are plagued by heroes coming back from death. Harry dies, then he and Dumbledore converse in some kind of purgatory, then Harry is totally fine again: No explanation. The decisive plot twist in the final Potter book made no more sense than a "Battlestar Galactica" episode.
Voldemort did have Harry's blood in his veins from book 4. Wormtail needed Harry's blood as part of the potion to bring back Voldemort. Harry survives the blow because the Elder want killed the piece of Voldemort inside Harry. This probably had a huge effect on him since he's had Voldemorts soul in him for a long time. This is probably why he also goes to this life and death King's Cross station.
Voldemort did have Harry's blood in his veins from book 4. Wormtail needed Harry's blood as part of the potion to bring back Voldemort. Harry survives the blow because the Elder want killed the piece of Voldemort inside Harry. This probably had a huge effect on him since he's had Voldemorts soul in him for a long time. This is probably why he also goes to this life and death King's Cross station.
I knew I forgot something. I noticed this as well, since Voldermort used the same sort of fear tactics to control everyone as Hitler did, among other things.
Hey, Spider-man made the same mistake. I think. >.>
The mechanism for the explanation for the sword's appearance was put into place in the second book, when harry pulled it out.
There was also an explanation for why Dumbledore never told anyone everything, though it wasn't entirely coherent. Apparently after his escapades as a child he stopped trusting people. At least that's what the brother said.
I'd have to re-read the story to work out why this is, but there's a convinient pseudo-answer readily available for any subtle inconsistencies; that's just how the magic works. Same as not being able to materialize food. If you don't like it you can find a better, more explicit answer, but odds are it would boil down to that.
The Hallows weren't really central to the plot, which is why they weren't much discussed. I think naming the book after them may have been a form of red herring, since at a critical juncture towards the end Harry had to decide wether finding the horcruxes or the hallows was more important. And it's kind of hard to make an intriguing title allong the lines of "Harry Potter and the Quest for the Horcurxes."
UnicronEX said:
Yep, I guess it sold well because it was a piece of trash and not because it's actually fun and tense to read and all. Really, lots of the "questions" asked there have already been answered by JKR if not by the book itself by opening your eyes and actually reading the book.
I "saw" Lupin and Tonks lying in the hall but I kinda wasn't aware they were dead, though I knew later when Lupin was recalled. Tonks I didn't find out until I was like "oh so they both died". I just read too quickly because I wanted to know how it ended.
Well, "Harry Potter and the Relics of Death" was being considered as well IIRC. True, it's a little more obvious, but I'm not sure if the title really fits, especially due to the Hallows' actual impact on the story. Mind you, I guess the Elder Wand was pretty big in the story, and the Invisibility Cloak was there from the beginning. "Harry Potter and the Elder Wand" might've been good though.
Did anybody else think that most of the book didn't really involve Horcruxes? I mean, none of them posed too much of a challenge due to what Harry's already been through at that point, and they weren't really hunting that hard I don't feel. True, they did sort of get on the path they were on due to the Horcruxes, and it was the penultimate goal to destroy them. But with things like the escape from Privet Drive, the wedding, and the Malfoy Manor, it felt like more of the book was spent being hunted, and not even because of their mission (just for being public enemy #s 1, 2 n' 3, really).
I'm almost ranting now, but did anybody else expect Dementors and Inferi to play a bigger role? I always thought Dementors would play a vital role in this book, what with them being Harry's worst fear since Book 3 (I suppose that could've changed by DH though). But we only see them driven off by Luna Lovegood in the final battle really. Also, Inferi seemed like a tossaway idea; they were introduced for the lake, but never seen again.
Actually, Relics of Death was a title that Rowling gave translators who were having trouble with translating "Deathly Hallows", it was never considered to be a name for the English versions of the book. I'm pretty sure Rowling revealed that the other names she considered were "Harry Potter and the Peverell Quest" and "Harry Potter and the Elder Wand". I know way too much about Harry Potter.
One of the things that made me very happy was the increased focus on Luna Lovegood - she was sort of pushed aside in book 6, but she had a major role in DH.
Neville's growth as a character has also impressed me very greatly. In the first books, he was an incompetent near-Squib, who was also the son of people who suffered at the hands of Voldemort, mocked by his grandmother and his peers.
By the end of the series, all he is is the guy who destroyed the last Horcrux, clearing the way for the final defeat of Voldemort, as well as one of the leaders of the resistance against the DE takeover of Hogwarts.
This was really shown with the letter from his grandmother saying that he was his parent's son and encouraging him to keep it up. I think that really drove home that Neville had made a quantum leap from earlier in the series.
Neville's growth as a character has also impressed me very greatly. In the first books, he was an incompetent near-Squib, who was also the son of people who suffered at the hands of Voldemort, mocked by his grandmother and his peers.
By the end of the series, all he is is the guy who destroyed the last Horcrux, clearing the way for the final defeat of Voldemort, as well as one of the leaders of the resistance against the DE takeover of Hogwarts.
This was really shown with the letter from his grandmother saying that he was his parent's son and encouraging him to keep it up. I think that really drove home that Neville had made a quantum leap from earlier in the series.
