THIS THREAD IS FOR PEOPLE WHO HAVE FINISHED READING HARRY POTTER AND THE DEATHLY HALLOWS.
If you haven't read it and don't want the plot ruined, don't keep reading!!!
Ok, my first question has to do with WordWolf's disappointment that things he was expecting were left out. Like... what?
The explanation of James' and Lily's jobs, and how they thwarted Voldy 3x.
The explanation of the Veil/Arch.
The explanation of Sirius' supposed death-which was promised.
The door that NEVER opens in the Dept of Mysteries.
For starters.
AFAIK, all of these (except the last) were all promised.
She also mentioned that Book 7 was going to go MORE into why some people become ghosts and others don't.
I LOVED the explanation of Snape's murder of Dumbledore. It all makes perfect sense to me.
I worked that one out in detail when we knew Snape & DD argued in the middle of Book 6.
And I love that Sirius was really dead and Dumbledore was really dead.
DD's death was predictable- and predicted. I expected him to die early in Book 7, but wasn't shocked it was sooner.
She kept foreshadowing it. Besides, she herself said to Emerson of Mugglenet....
"Yeah, well, I think if you take a step back, in the genre of writing that I'm working in, almost always the hero must go on alone. That's the way it is. We all know that, so the question is when and how, isn't it? If you know anything about the construction of that kind of plot."
"The wise old wizard with the beard always dies."
"Well, that's basically what I'm saying, yes. "
When we saw the portrait of him in the headmaster's office, that was the "stick a fork in him" moment.
Her website says:
"Section: F.A.Q.
When the Marauder's Map is insulting Snape, how did Prongs write his insult as he's dead?
Wizards have ways of making sure their voices are heard
after their death -
think of Bertha Jorkins rising out of the Pensieve in 'Goblet of Fire', the Sorting Hat continuing to spout the wisdom of the Founders hundreds of years after their deaths, the ghosts walking around Hogwarts,
the portraits of dead headmasters and mistresses in Dumbledore's office,
not to mention Mrs. Black's portrait in number twelve, Grimmauld Place... there are other examples, too, of which the Marauder's Map is merely one. It is not really Prongs writing the insult to Snape, it is as though he left a magical recording of his voice within the map. "
And Sunday,Aug 5,2004, at the Edinburgh Book Festival, she said
"Q: All the paintings we have seen at Hogwarts are of dead people. They seem to be living through their portraits. How is this so? If there was a painting of Harry's parents, would he be able to obtain advice from them?
JKR: That is a very good question.
They are all of dead people;
they are not as fully realised as ghosts, as you have probably noticed.
The place where you see them really talk is in Dumbledore's office, primarily; the idea is that the previous headmasters and headmistresses leave behind a faint imprint of themselves. They leave their aura, almost, in the office and they can give some counsel to the present occupant, but it is not like being a ghost. They repeat catchphrases, almost."
And, since some people needed her to say it outright,
during "An Evening with Harry, Carrie and Garp", (Aug 1, 2006) JKR said the following:
"I need to be a little more explicit and say that
Dumbledore is definitely dead.
And I do know - I do know that there is an entire website out there that says - that's name is DumbledoreIsNotDead.com so umm,
I'd imagine they're not pretty happy right now.
But I think I need - you need -
all of you need to move through the five stages of grief , and I'm just helping you get past denial."
Now with Sirius,
JKR made an elaborate effort to DUCK THE QUESTION every time it came up.
(I looked most carefully at her interviews, website, etc, and watched it happen.)
Contrasted with the above,
and note that no body was ever recovered (which, actually, was a rule consistent with the rest of the series)
and so on,
it was obvious JKR deliberately wanted to be AMBIGUOUS about his "death".
That means either:
A) He's alive and she wants us to believe he's dead
or
B) He's dead and she wants us to believe he's alive.
etc.
I agree with WordWolf that the body count seemed to be racked up for no real narrative reason. Don't tell me Lupin's dead and Tonks s dead: tell me how and why!
Can we start putting pieces together, though? I really do enjoy that.
Sure.
Want to start with "how was The Prophecy actually fulfilled?"
After all, JKR's own website says
"Both Madam Trelawney and I worded the prophecy extremely carefully and that is all I have to say on the subject!"
Why, then, is it IRRELEVANT to the actual climax of the series?
The Prophecy states:
""The one with the power to vanquish the Dark Lord approaches... born to those who have thrice defied him, born as the seventh month dies... and the Dark Lord will mark him as his equal, but he will have power the Dark Lord knows not... and either must die at the hand of the other for neither can live while the other survives... the one with the power to vanquish the Dark Lord will be born as the seventh month dies..."
The part I'm especially concerned with is
"and either must die at the hand of the other"
(not "and either must die AT HIS OWN HAND")
==========
Oh, and for fun, here's the first thing that bothered me in Book 7.
What happens to a secret when the Secret-Keeper dies?
I was surprised that this question won, because it is not the one that I'd have voted for… but hey, if this is what you want to know, this is what you want to know!
When a Secret-Keeper dies, their secret dies with them, or, to put it another way, the status of their secret will remain as it was at the moment of their death. Everybody in whom they confided will continue to know the hidden information, but nobody else."
Book 7, page 90, US edition.
"...after the death of Dumbledore, their Secret-Keeper, each of the people to whom Dumbledore had confided Grimmauld Place's location had become a Secret-Keeper in turn."
Besides the fact that this contradicted what she herself said while writing Book 7, the characters were oblivious to what it meant.
Either they should have been convinced Snape was a Death Eater, or Snape was working against Voldemort.
If they were convinced Snape was a Death Eater, page 91 and following should have reflected the obvious conclusions:
"Since I'm convinced Snape's working for Voldemoldy, and tells him everything important, obviously he's ALREADY told him all about
12 Grimmauld Place. Therefore, Death Eaters are on their way now and I have to pack."
If the non-arrival of Death Eaters made it obvious Snape was ABLE to give away the location and DIDN'T, the rest of the book
should have reflected the obvious conclusions:
"Since Death Eaters haven't already arrived, Snape's sitting on the Secret he's Keeping, and therefore he's not REALLY working for the
When a Secret-Keeper dies, their secret dies with them, or, to put it another way, the status of their secret will remain as it was at the moment of their death. Everybody in whom they confided will continue to know the hidden information, but nobody else."
Book 7, page 90, US edition.
"...after the death of Dumbledore, their Secret-Keeper, each of the people to whom Dumbledore had confided Grimmauld Place's location had become a Secret-Keeper in turn."
I don't know that she is contradicting herself here. When the secret-keeper dies, at that point, all who knew the secret, still know it, but nobody else. In the book she just expands that to say that now each one who knew the info, can TELL the info, which they couldn't before.
Besides the fact that this contradicted what she herself said while writing Book 7, the characters were oblivious to what it meant.
Either they should have been convinced Snape was a Death Eater, or Snape was working against Voldemort.
If they were convinced Snape was a Death Eater, page 91 and following should have reflected the obvious conclusions:
"Since I'm convinced Snape's working for Voldemoldy, and tells him everything important, obviously he's ALREADY told him all about
12 Grimmauld Place. Therefore, Death Eaters are on their way now and I have to pack."
If the non-arrival of Death Eaters made it obvious Snape was ABLE to give away the location and DIDN'T, the rest of the book
should have reflected the obvious conclusions:
"Since Death Eaters haven't already arrived, Snape's sitting on the Secret he's Keeping, and therefore he's not REALLY working for the Volderoni."
They knew exactly what it meant. They had decided Snape was definately working for Voldemort (after killing DD) and they not only vacated HQ but set a tongue-tying curse on anyone who entered. It describes Harry, Ron, and Hermione experiencing said curse, and implies that Snape had already rummaged the house, therefore was subjected to the curse. I believe it is Lupin that later says Snape obviously didn't tell because the death-eaters are simply hanging around on the outside hoping to see someone coming or going. They didn't know it was HQ for the Order, they just knew it was Sirius' residence and had been willed to Harry, so they thought he might show up there.
I don't know that she is contradicting herself here. When the secret-keeper dies, at that point, all who knew the secret, still know it, but nobody else. In the book she just expands that to say that now each one who knew the info, can TELL the info, which they couldn't before.
The Fidelius Charm means ONLY THE SECRET-KEEPER can tell-and no one else.
One Secret-Keeper means ONE person can tell- by speaking or by writing a note as in Book 5 when Harry arrives at
12 Grimmauld Place.
Her website specifies that once a Secret-Keeper dies, there's ZERO Secret-Keepers.
NOBODY else can learn. (Unless, say, an old note was found.)
The book specifies that now there's OVER A DOZEN Secret-Keepers, and ALL of them can tell.
The status of the secret is now fluid, and not fixed, and will not
"remain as it was at the moment of their death."
New people CAN learn-and as we saw, DID learn.
They knew exactly what it meant. They had decided Snape was definately working for Voldemort (after killing DD) and they not only vacated HQ but set a tongue-tying curse on anyone who entered. It describes Harry, Ron, and Hermione experiencing said curse, and implies that Snape had already rummaged the house, therefore was subjected to the curse. I believe it is Lupin that later says Snape obviously didn't tell because the death-eaters are simply hanging around on the outside hoping to see someone coming or going. They didn't know it was HQ for the Order, they just knew it was Sirius' residence and had been willed to Harry, so they thought he might show up there.
Right. But they had a LONG time where Harry, Ron, Hermione were hanging out IN 12 Grimmauld Place,
and they STILL thought Snape was a traitor, but they STILL were living there.
If so, they should NOT have felt secure-they should have expected an ALL-OUT ATTACK like the "Seven Potters" chapter.
If they felt secure-they should have concluded Snape wasn't a traitor.
How comfy could you be, setting up to live in a place you expect should be flattened in a mortar attack without warning?
I just really really enjoyed it. I have been re reading it and marveling at what I missed the first time. I got kind of chilled when I realised that BOTH Harry and voldy were stunned when he tried to kill him....I mean I knew that the thing was a piece of him...I guess I figured it was just one of the horcrux pieces....when I re read and realised that was all that was left of him...what he would be like forever...that Harry tried to get him to show some remorse....whew. That Nevill got to kill the snake...I loved what a comfort Luna was....how she ended up being pretty special after all.
I also teared up...when harry referred to his son whom he had named after snape....the man he had hated for so many years ...as the bravest man he had ever known.
I was suprised at how sad I was at dobby`s death...how tickled I was at Kreachers turn around, how I loved that Nevill had become a leader.
My daughter and I marveled at how emotionally attached we had become to these made up fairy tail creatures and characters....maaaaaaaaaaan
I am sorry that it was a dissapointment to you ww.
This was by far my favorite in the series. It sustained an 'anything can happen' feel throughout, and kept me turning pages when I should have been doing other stuff. That rarely happens these days.
I am not the Potter scholar that others are, so maybe I didn't 'know better'. I just thought it a ripping good yarn.
I agree with rascal: I wasn't disappointed at all.
I loved Kreacher and Dobby. They were awesome (and they justified all that nonsense in previous books about Hermione's concern for the house elves).
I guess I never clamored for any more information on the veil: I figured Sirius was dead and that was the end of that. And I took the "avada kedavra" and green burst of light in the OTP movie as confirmation that Rowling wanted us to believe Sirius was quite simply dead.
So there are holes. Yup. But no bigger (or smaller) than the holes in Star Wars (like how does Obi-Wan not know in ESB that Luke was NOT their last hope).
The bad thing about the deaths of Lupin and Tonks is that we don't get to see it and will never know exactly how heroically they died. The good thing about that, though, is that it reinforces the scene as breakneck-fast, an actual battle with lots going on at once, and Harry only being able to see but so much of it and having little to no time to react to it until it is pretty much over.
The "effin" and "bitch" lines were unnecessary, I thought. Rowling's epilogue is written with a child in mind, and the rest of the book should have kept that in mind, too. As an adult, I don't mind the use of those words. But when i think of the rest of the audience, particularly the youngest, I'm disappointed.
And the more I think of the epilogue, the less I like it. It only scratches the surface of what we'd like to know about their futures. It doesn't even tell us whether our three heroes GRADUATED, for Pete's sake. Did they get honorary degrees or something?
I agree with rascal: I wasn't disappointed at all.
I loved Kreacher and Dobby. They were awesome (and they justified all that nonsense in previous books about Hermione's concern for the house elves).
I guess I never clamored for any more information on the veil: I figured Sirius was dead and that was the end of that. And I took the "avada kedavra" and green burst of light in the OTP movie as confirmation that Rowling wanted us to believe Sirius was quite simply dead.
Most of Book 5 was the tail wagging the dog. 1/2 the book was dragging the plot to put the gang in the Dept of Mysteries,
where there was a fight over the prophecy, and all the rooms there. The Death Room and the Door-That-Is-Never-Opened
were inserted into the story rather conspicuously.
Neither reference was needed. For a dramatic scene, it would have worked AT LEAST as good if she used the
Avada Kedavra in the book.
And the book distinctly does NOT use that.
Bellatrix fires a red Stunner.
Bellatrix follows up immediately with a follow-up, which is seen by Harry and the color is unspecified, but the effect is not
the same as the AK, and it pushed Sirius.
Harry saw it and didn't identify it as the green AK, and the effect didn't match. Plus, Harry expected to see Sirius get up.
So, in the book, it was NOT an AK, and was PROBABLY a Stunner.
And if it was SUPPOSED to be an AK, it was VERY poorly handled-since all ways to identify it were missing.
(The colour, the effect, Harry expecting to see Sirius awake...)
Then the question is, does going thru the Veil and Arch kill someone or trap them?
If it traps them, then Harry has a reason to undertake the step in the Hero's Journey where, like Orpheus, Hercules and
others, he descends to the Underworld to perform a rescue.
It seemed foreshadowed in the other books...
Book 1: Harry, Ron and Hermione (the Golden Trio) bypass a 3-headed dog (from Greece), and descend into a dark
chamber below.
Book 2: The Golden Trio pass a heavy veil, interact with the dead, and return safely (Nick's Deathday Party.)
Book 3: A dead man returns (Wormtail.)
Book 4: A dead man returns fully from the dead, in a graveyard (Voldymoldy).
The first 2, at least, seem to point in that direction.
If it just kills them, then the entire introduction of this chamber is completely needless- Bellatrix could have
fired the AK and just hit him with it.
(Apparently, the director of Movie 5 saw it the same way, and just used it there.)
Further, I object to JKR's elaborate evasions of whether or not Sirius is dead, when she said Dumbledore was
dead outright. She went to a lot of trouble to avoid saying it one way or the other.
So there are holes. Yup. But no bigger (or smaller) than the holes in Star Wars (like how does Obi-Wan not know in ESB that Luke was NOT their last hope).
That's a separate discussion. I think Book 7 had a higher concentration of holes than any one SW movie.
And I thought the pacing was off. My best explanation: "It was late, and JKR was tired."
The bad thing about the deaths of Lupin and Tonks is that we don't get to see it and will never know exactly how heroically they died. The good thing about that, though, is that it reinforces the scene as breakneck-fast, an actual battle with lots going on at once, and Harry only being able to see but so much of it and having little to no time to react to it until it is pretty much over.
It felt like she just added their deaths in when she tallied it up and said "Not enough deaths..."
BTW, earlier today, she confirmed that one of them was one of the two that she chose to kill off instead of letting him live.
The "effin" and "bitch" lines were unnecessary, I thought. Rowling's epilogue is written with a child in mind, and the rest of the book should have kept that in mind, too. As an adult, I don't mind the use of those words. But when i think of the rest of the audience, particularly the youngest, I'm disappointed.
You forgot "Enough....effing.....OWLS!" -Vernon Dursley in Book 2. (I think it was 2, with all the notes.)
And you didn't recognize the line from Aliens?
I saw teenagers citing it!
Ripley:"GET AWAY FROM HER, YOU BITCH!"
Some of them voted the HP line "Best line ever!" for reasons I find insufficient.
It WAS supposed to be aimed at a young audience.
The line I liked was a callback from Book 1. "Are you a wizard or not?"- Hermione to Ron,
calling back Hermione's dilemma as to how to start a fire to free Ron from the Devil's Snare.
Hermione:"...but there's no wood!"
Harry:"ARE YOU A WITCH OR NOT?"
And the more I think of the epilogue, the less I like it. It only scratches the surface of what we'd like to know about their futures. It doesn't even tell us whether our three heroes GRADUATED, for Pete's sake. Did they get honorary degrees or something?
It's roughly what I expected, and saccharine enough to end a story meant for kids.
Me, I'm working my way through the Dresden Files while I wait for the greatly-superior "Wheel of Time" series' last book.
HP was largely to keep me occupied while waiting for Wheel of Time books.
Oh, and those of you who loved this one, congratulations! More power to you! I'm glad you got more enjoyment than I did.
I`m sorry that you didn`t wolf. I noticed the poll on mugglenet that most people seemed to like it....but that there were some like you who were dissapointed.
I guess that I am not very analylitical. I just enjoyed following where the story went. I spent most of my time trying to not go nuts and fly through the book at one sitting (I finally gave up after five chapters and finished it lol) I mostly wanted for snape to be good, I wanted to know that there was a real plan why Dumbledor had to die...I wanted to know why Dobby was important....I loved that Neville finally came into his own with his gran...
I loved reading the back ground on Dumbledor....his family, what made him the guy that he was. I loved the developing of his brother, how so different yet still on the same side....I was infuriated that rita skeeter was allowed to trash him...in short I was completely engrossed and involved with the story
Maybe it lagged in the middle, but it seemed necessary information....What I haven`t figured out yet was why they didn`t just dissaperate from the dragon rather than waiting for it to get close to the ground.
The overwhelming feeling that I had when I finished the very last page and closed the book was just wishing that I could Thank the author for a real treat.....in my opinion a once in a life time pleasure.
I seriously do not see myself ever getting involved with a series or story this enthusiastically again....and to think...I only started reading it to determine it`s suitability for my children and ensure that there was no chance of spiritual contamination....lol
I`m sorry that you didn`t wolf. I noticed the poll on mugglenet that most people seemed to like it....but that there were some like you who were dissapointed.
Different expectations. That's why I didn't mind the last chapter, but some people did.
I expected it after reading Book 5-at least the basic content (years later...)
I guess that I am not very analylitical. I just enjoyed following where the story went. I spent most of my time trying to not go nuts and fly through the book at one sitting (I finally gave up after five chapters and finished it lol) I mostly wanted for snape to be good, I wanted to know that there was a real plan why Dumbledor had to die...I wanted to know why Dobby was important....I loved that Neville finally came into his own with his gran...
I had worked out that DD was already GOING to die, and dying that way preserved Snape's "cover",
so that was no surprise to me. Neville started coming along nicely starting Book 5, when he was
able to get out of his parents' shadow and apply himself. I really expected him to get Narcissa
in the big fight scene-he almost seemed to be training for that in the DA.
I loved reading the back ground on Dumbledor....his family, what made him the guy that he was. I loved the developing of his brother, how so different yet still on the same side....I was infuriated that rita skeeter was allowed to trash him...in short I was completely engrossed and involved with the story
Considering what she left out, I found the entire "deathly hallows" subplot to not only be unnecessary and
steal time from the main plot, I found it muddied the story. If she was leaving other things out
to save space and time, I see no reason to include this when it seems to have been needless.
(I say the wand business could just have been written differently.)
Maybe it lagged in the middle, but it seemed necessary information....What I haven`t figured out yet was why they didn`t just dissaperate from the dragon rather than waiting for it to get close to the ground.
My thinking is that Disapparition has to be done from a stable platform, with relatively little movement, So, you
could disapparate on a train when it's stopped, or a plane in an airport, but not either when they're in
motion because that could drop you moving at the same speed or do some more harmful thing like
automatically "splinch" you. (Where there's a good shot of an explanation, I DO give the benefit of
the doubt.)
The overwhelming feeling that I had when I finished the very last page and closed the book was just wishing that I could Thank the author for a real treat.....in my opinion a once in a life time pleasure.
Congrats. That's a rare feeling for me.
I seriously do not see myself ever getting involved with a series or story this enthusiastically again....and to think...I only started reading it to determine it`s suitability for my children and ensure that there was no chance of spiritual contamination....lol
If you're looking for another series to immerse yourself in, I'd recommend Robert Jordan's "Wheel of Time"
series, starting with the first book, "Eye of the World."
(It's not perfect, but I give it high marks. The second book does drag a bit, which I dislike, but that doesn't ruin
Word wolf, thank you for that recommendation. I will look into it. You are right different people enjoy different aspects of the story. I really admire your analytical ability, the way you keep facts and story lines straight, how you pick up the tiny details. I am sorry that the story fell short in those areas.
I guess that the characters over time become very real to me, when she gives added back ground, it`s kind of like finding out more about a very dear friend.
I liked that the concept of deathly hallows was so foreign to me....that I couldn`t see where things were possibly going to go...that I was guessing right up untill the end as to the out come.
I kind of liked when short plump and for the most part kindly Mrs. W said that the b-tch was hers....being a mother I kind of identified with the rage of someone daring to threaten one of my youngsters...lol....it kind of intensified the whole scenario in my mind....
I liked reading about the families afterwards too.
Okay finally finished the book and here's my thoughts - let's see what you think, WordWolf and you other Muggles out there...
I loved the info about Harry's parents and the chapter about Godric's Hallow but it wasn't easy to follow when Bathilda Bagshot was being used like a puppet by Nagini/Voldy. I take it she was turned into nephari (sp?)... but it took some reading and re-reading to get there...
What exactly happened at King's Cross - was that just inside Harry's head?
I was disappointed in some of the characters who had "crossed over" to Voldy's side - i.e. X. Lovegood.
I found it very interesting when Snape died that something silver came out his face/mouth that Harry was able to collect in a bottle and later on we find out that it was a memory. I don't recall that happening in any of the other books. But it did provide an interesting memory for Harry & Co to explore to discover the truth about Snape and DD's murder/assisted suicide.
It was rather sad to read about the torch that Snape carried for Lilly - no suprise there, as it was hinted about in previous books.
I would have liked more information about the Dept of Mysteries, like WordWolf wrote about - I found that to be a little disappointing...
I LOVED how Molly Weasley opened up a can of whoop@$$ on Bellatrix.
Also liked it when Greyback got OK'd - couldn't stand that character!
Wondered about how Geroge Weasley got on without Fred - wish there had been more on that in the "19 years later" chapter...
Okay finally finished the book and here's my thoughts - let's see what you think, WordWolf and you other Muggles out there...
I loved the info about Harry's parents and the chapter about Godric's Hallow but it wasn't easy to follow when Bathilda Bagshot was being used like a puppet by Nagini/Voldy. I take it she was turned into nephari (sp?)... but it took some reading and re-reading to get there...
I think you meant an "inferi." We saw inferi at the end of Book 6, in the locket's cave. They appear to be mindless zombies.
Bathilda Bagshot's situation was never explained, but she was definitely not "mindless". She had a programmed personality,
and had Nagini implanted in her. No explanation was even suggested as to how that would work, not in any book,
(including "'Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find them' by Newt Scamander")
nor her website, nor any interview.
What exactly happened at King's Cross - was that just inside Harry's head?
In a word, yes. It was perhaps in his soul, perhaps in his mind, but either way, it didn't happen anywhere except Harry's
perceptions.
It's a little different from the beginning of the third Matrix movie in that respect, but otherwise similar in that it
had the hero temporarily stranded between life and death at a train station.
I was disappointed in some of the characters who had "crossed over" to Voldy's side - i.e. X. Lovegood.
He didn't SEEM like the kind to cave in normally, did he? Then again, he was trying to save his daughter.
I found it very interesting when Snape died that something silver came out his face/mouth that Harry was able to collect in a bottle and later on we find out that it was a memory. I don't recall that happening in any of the other books. But it did provide an interesting memory for Harry & Co to explore to discover the truth about Snape and DD's murder/assisted suicide.
Well, it's not completely conflicting with the descriptions. Memories have been extracted- in the form of silver strands-
and captured in bottles. We saw the strands in Book 4 (Dumbledore trying to divine the mystery before him, using the Pen-Sieve),
Book 5 (Snape separating some memories when "teaching" Harry Occlumency)
and Book 6 (Slughorn's memory.)
We saw memories in a bottle all through Book 6, during Dumbledore's private sessions with Harry.
I took the non-strand aspect to be Snape struggling to pass them along before he died-rather than the wand-technique used in the other books.
It was rather sad to read about the torch that Snape carried for Lilly - no suprise there, as it was hinted about in previous books.
I thought the supposed hints could have been taken either way, and found there was insufficient support to back them
without the memories in Book 7.
The hints WERE discussed by fans, and the ones I discussed were two:
A) Why was "Snape's worst memory" his WORST memory? (Book 5)
The argument FOR was him driving off Lily.
The argument AGAINST was the abject humiliation Snape was suffering.
B) Book 5, "Dudley Demented." When Harry was explaining about the attack by the Dementors, Vernon Dursley asked what a Dementor was.
Petunia immediately rattled off "The guard the wizard prison Azkaban" (I may have paraphrased slightly.)
When everyone stared at her in shock, she explained she had overheard "that horrid boy" explain that to Lily.
The question was: was Snape the "horrid boy" instead of James Potter?
The argument FOR was that James doesn't seem like a "horrid boy", and why else would Snape be horrified the Potters were killed?
The argument AGAINST was that Petunia was negative on all magic, so ANY wizard would be "horrid", and there's no reason to suppose
Snape ever MET Lily outside of Hogwarts or interacted with her in there, even. (In "Snape's Worst Memory", a stranger might have
told James to stop bullying Snape, since it was wrong.) Further, Snape owed James a life-debt, and then was responsible for his death.
Personally, I don't think there was much substance to the hints. They're obvious if you know exactly what information is critical and
which to ignore, which is to say, almost-coincidental.
I also think that it made no sense for Snape to insult Tonks for her Patronus changing shape to correspond to the person she loved,
when his had been so for years. The argument for him saying that is that Snape can be a real a-hole sometimes, but I find that
SPECIFIC barb out-of-character. Finally, the only things connecting Lily with a doe is that she was married to Prongs. This meant
he needed to know about Prongs, first of all, which he seemed to be, at least by the time of the series.
(Book 3, his comments to Lupin about the parchment by Wormtail, Moony, Padfoot and Prongs. "I think he got that parchment
FROM THE MANUFACTURERS." He seemed to know he was addressing one of them...)
However, of all things, Snape hated James, loved Lily, and defined Lily in terms of her marriage to James?
I find that inconsistent. If there was some direct connection between Lily and the doe, that would be different.
However, we have no reason to suspect she was also an Animagus, especially since it was so difficult, they are so rare,
and her strength was in CHARMS, like her wand, while James' was in TRANSFIGURATION, like his wand.
I would have liked more information about the Dept of Mysteries, like WordWolf wrote about - I found that to be a little disappointing...
I LOVED how Molly Weasley opened up a can of whoop@$$ on Bellatrix.
A lot of fans loved it, many BECAUSE of the profanity.
Also liked it when Greyback got OK'd - couldn't stand that character!
Fenrir Greyback and Bellatrix Lestrange were the sickest followers of Voldemort, and HAD to go.
Wondered about how George Weasley got on without Fred - wish there had been more on that in the "19 years later" chapter...
More to post but hubby wants the 'puter... :-)
Ron Weasley joined George as proprietors at Weasleys Wizarding Wheezes.
Yes, correct... what was I drinking that night when I posted? :)
(Acually, hubby and I had just had a deep conversation about Nephlim in mythology just before I posted - I twisted my words. Whoops!)
They appear to be mindless zombies.
I can totally relate but my understanding is that they could be made to do Voldy's will. That's why I thought she might be inferi.
I thought the supposed hints could have been taken either way, and found there was insufficient support to back them
without the memories in Book 7.
I respectfully disagree there only because there was certainly a history between them. Lilly saved Snape from James & Co's prank on him where he was turned upside down. Snape was less than kind to her but wasn't as "hateful" as you would expect him to be. The memory was painful to him becuase he was humiliated in front of someone he had feelings for, in my opinion - that made it even worse. There were small details that made it seem possible - not just "wishful thinking"...
Book 5, "Dudley Demented." When Harry was explaining about the attack by the Dementors, Vernon Dursley asked what a Dementor was.
Petunia immediately rattled off "The guard the wizard prison Azkaban" (I may have paraphrased slightly.)
When everyone stared at her in shock, she explained she had overheard "that horrid boy" explain that to Lily.
The question was: was Snape the "horrid boy" instead of James Potter?
Since the reference is to the word "boy", I would assume this is talking about Snape, not James. Lily didn't date James until after they were out of school. Interesting... hmmm...
I also think that it made no sense for Snape to insult Tonks for her Patronus changing shape to correspond to the person she loved,
when his had been so for years. The argument for him saying that is that Snape can be a real a-hole sometimes, but I find that
SPECIFIC barb out-of-character. Finally, the only things connecting Lily with a doe is that she was married to Prongs. This meant
he needed to know about Prongs, first of all, which he seemed to be, at least by the time of the series.
(Book 3, his comments to Lupin about the parchment by Wormtail, Moony, Padfoot and Prongs. "I think he got that parchment
FROM THE MANUFACTURERS." He seemed to know he was addressing one of them...)
Well, yes. Wouldn't Snape have known the nicknames from Wormtail himself, considering that's what Voldy called him? It's certain that the nicknames could have been used when the four were not in their animal states but could have likely been used as "pet" names for each other. Snape knew Lupin was a werewolf BEFORE he came on staff at Hogwarts, so it only makes sense.
As for Tonks' Patronus and Snape's snide comment - I took it that he knew Tonks was basically rejected by Lupin at that time, who didn't want to get involved with her due to his "condition" and because he felt he was too old for her. Snape may have also done it because he knew Tonks was a pureblood, a relative of Bella and Cissa (a niece of theirs, I believe.) I took it as a dig - something he did quite often to all those around him (Harry, Ron, etc.)
A lot of fans loved it, many BECAUSE of the profanity.
I've always like Molly's character and knew she was strong. The profanity had nothing to do with my liking it - it was just a good duel.
I respectfully disagree there only because there was certainly a history between them. Lilly saved Snape from James & Co's prank on him where he was turned upside down. Snape was less than kind to her but wasn't as "hateful" as you would expect him to be. The memory was painful to him becuase he was humiliated in front of someone he had feelings for, in my opinion - that made it even worse. There were small details that made it seem possible - not just "wishful thinking"...
We interpret the information differently.
Since the reference is to the word "boy", I would assume this is talking about Snape, not James. Lily didn't date James until after they were out of school. Interesting... hmmm...
It's not expressly stated, AFAIK, but the implications are they DID, in their 7th year, when they were Head Boy and
Head Girl. I'd have to reread Book 5, when Sirius described how James' head finally deflated to know.
I'll reread it eventually.
Well, yes. Wouldn't Snape have known the nicknames from Wormtail himself, considering that's what Voldy called him? It's certain that the nicknames could have been used when the four were not in their animal states but could have likely been used as "pet" names for each other. Snape knew Lupin was a werewolf BEFORE he came on staff at Hogwarts, so it only makes sense.
I expect he knew as a result of the incident where James saved his life-mentioned in Book 3.
Good point about what Wormtail knew, the Death Eaters knew. It's come up when discussing the reference to
"the Animagus Black" in the fight between the OotP and the DEs in Book 5.
As for Tonks' Patronus and Snape's snide comment - I took it that he knew Tonks was basically rejected by Lupin at that time, who didn't want to get involved with her due to his "condition" and because he felt he was too old for her. Snape may have also done it because he knew Tonks was a pureblood, a relative of Bella and Cissa (a niece of theirs, I believe.) I took it as a dig - something he did quite often to all those around him (Harry, Ron, etc.)
We agree it was a dig-I just think that there's a difference between
"Snape loathed James and took it out on Harry"
and
"Snape sure was a real a-hole."
I think this specific incident moves him into the second category.
I've always like Molly's character and knew she was strong. The profanity had nothing to do with my liking it - it was just a good duel.
Question: Who raises Tonk's and Lupin's baby?
The common thinking is Ted Tonks, the muggleborn, will do it, since he's still alive.
The running gag is that the kid will be a werewolf with hair that changes colour all the time.
So, what do you think of the connection between the doe and Lily Potter?
What is the connection? And what should Snape's response to it be?
I'm not sure on the connection between the doe and Lilly Potter. There's many doe/stag references in mythology, and perhaps that's part of it. When I first read of James' stag Patronus I was reminded of C. S. Lewis' "The Lion, The Witch, and the Wardrobe" story. It's never mentioned if Lilly had a different Patronus prior to her and James becoming a couple. Since Snape carried a torch for Lilly, it is interesting that his Patronus was what her's once was... but again, it's never mentioned before what it might have been prior. More interesting is the dig that Snape gives Tonks - even tho he was in the same boat, eh?
Question: What's up with the curse(?) of the "ghost" of Dumbledore at 12 Grimmauld Place coming out everytime someone new comes in the house??
I'm not sure on the connection between the doe and Lilly Potter. There's many doe/stag references in mythology, and perhaps that's part of it. When I first read of James' stag Patronus I was reminded of C. S. Lewis' "The Lion, The Witch, and the Wardrobe" story. It's never mentioned if Lilly had a different Patronus prior to her and James becoming a couple.
It was never stated Lily HAD a Patronus. Not every wizard DOES- only those that master the Patronus Charm.
We can safely infer she DID have one because her wand was good for Charms (therefore, it was a strength of HERS as well)
and she was a member of the Order-and their standard method of communication was the Patronus Charm.
JKR said this on her website a few times, and we saw Kingsley use it in Book 7 in the manner they did.
(We saw the delivery end in Book 4 and Book 6, by Dumbledore and Tonks, respectively.)
Since Snape carried a torch for Lilly, it is interesting that his Patronus was what her's once was... but again, it's never mentioned before what it might have been prior. More interesting is the dig that Snape gives Tonks - even tho he was in the same boat, eh?
I still feel that dig was inconsistent with the complete picture of Snape-since I feel it elevates him from "annoying"
to "a-hole". However, I'm not the author, and it IS open to interpretation.
Question: What's up with the curse(?) of the "ghost" of Dumbledore at 12 Grimmauld Place coming out everytime someone new comes in the house??
It was explained partly in Book 7. I forget if it was Kingsley who cast it (was it Mad-Eye?)
It was, in effect, a magical trap, programmed to reset and attack, trying to hit Snape.
I'll have to be in the mood to read the book a second time to know for sure, and that hasn't happened yet.
She'll now get vilified by the religious right, but there is nothing in the books themselves to corrupt young minds. At least in that regard. Kids may all turn into witches, though I don't think they'll have much luck shouting 'stupefy' !
I think most writers have ideas about their characters as they write them, that don't always come out on the page.If that's what she had in mind for Dumbledore, then so be it.
Recommended Posts
WordWolf
The explanation of James' and Lily's jobs, and how they thwarted Voldy 3x.
The explanation of the Veil/Arch.
The explanation of Sirius' supposed death-which was promised.
The door that NEVER opens in the Dept of Mysteries.
For starters.
AFAIK, all of these (except the last) were all promised.
She also mentioned that Book 7 was going to go MORE into why some people become ghosts and others don't.
I worked that one out in detail when we knew Snape & DD argued in the middle of Book 6.DD's death was predictable- and predicted. I expected him to die early in Book 7, but wasn't shocked it was sooner.
She kept foreshadowing it. Besides, she herself said to Emerson of Mugglenet....
"Yeah, well, I think if you take a step back, in the genre of writing that I'm working in, almost always the hero must go on alone. That's the way it is. We all know that, so the question is when and how, isn't it? If you know anything about the construction of that kind of plot."
"The wise old wizard with the beard always dies."
"Well, that's basically what I'm saying, yes. "
When we saw the portrait of him in the headmaster's office, that was the "stick a fork in him" moment.
Her website says:
"Section: F.A.Q.
When the Marauder's Map is insulting Snape, how did Prongs write his insult as he's dead?
Wizards have ways of making sure their voices are heard
after their death -
think of Bertha Jorkins rising out of the Pensieve in 'Goblet of Fire', the Sorting Hat continuing to spout the wisdom of the Founders hundreds of years after their deaths, the ghosts walking around Hogwarts,
the portraits of dead headmasters and mistresses in Dumbledore's office,
not to mention Mrs. Black's portrait in number twelve, Grimmauld Place... there are other examples, too, of which the Marauder's Map is merely one. It is not really Prongs writing the insult to Snape, it is as though he left a magical recording of his voice within the map. "
And Sunday,Aug 5,2004, at the Edinburgh Book Festival, she said
"Q: All the paintings we have seen at Hogwarts are of dead people. They seem to be living through their portraits. How is this so? If there was a painting of Harry's parents, would he be able to obtain advice from them?
JKR: That is a very good question.
They are all of dead people;
they are not as fully realised as ghosts, as you have probably noticed.
The place where you see them really talk is in Dumbledore's office, primarily; the idea is that the previous headmasters and headmistresses leave behind a faint imprint of themselves. They leave their aura, almost, in the office and they can give some counsel to the present occupant, but it is not like being a ghost. They repeat catchphrases, almost."
And, since some people needed her to say it outright,
during "An Evening with Harry, Carrie and Garp", (Aug 1, 2006) JKR said the following:
"I need to be a little more explicit and say that
Dumbledore is definitely dead.
And I do know - I do know that there is an entire website out there that says - that's name is DumbledoreIsNotDead.com so umm,
I'd imagine they're not pretty happy right now.
But I think I need - you need -
all of you need to move through the five stages of grief , and I'm just helping you get past denial."
Now with Sirius,
JKR made an elaborate effort to DUCK THE QUESTION every time it came up.
(I looked most carefully at her interviews, website, etc, and watched it happen.)
Contrasted with the above,
and note that no body was ever recovered (which, actually, was a rule consistent with the rest of the series)
and so on,
it was obvious JKR deliberately wanted to be AMBIGUOUS about his "death".
That means either:
A) He's alive and she wants us to believe he's dead
or
B) He's dead and she wants us to believe he's alive.
etc.
Sure.
Want to start with "how was The Prophecy actually fulfilled?"
After all, JKR's own website says
"Both Madam Trelawney and I worded the prophecy extremely carefully and that is all I have to say on the subject!"
Why, then, is it IRRELEVANT to the actual climax of the series?
The Prophecy states:
""The one with the power to vanquish the Dark Lord approaches... born to those who have thrice defied him, born as the seventh month dies... and the Dark Lord will mark him as his equal, but he will have power the Dark Lord knows not... and either must die at the hand of the other for neither can live while the other survives... the one with the power to vanquish the Dark Lord will be born as the seventh month dies..."
The part I'm especially concerned with is
"and either must die at the hand of the other"
(not "and either must die AT HIS OWN HAND")
==========
Oh, and for fun, here's the first thing that bothered me in Book 7.
http://www.jkrowling.com/textonly/en/faq_poll.cfm
"Result of F.A.Q. Poll
(SPOILER WARNING)
What happens to a secret when the Secret-Keeper dies?
I was surprised that this question won, because it is not the one that I'd have voted for… but hey, if this is what you want to know, this is what you want to know!
When a Secret-Keeper dies, their secret dies with them, or, to put it another way, the status of their secret will remain as it was at the moment of their death. Everybody in whom they confided will continue to know the hidden information, but nobody else."
Book 7, page 90, US edition.
"...after the death of Dumbledore, their Secret-Keeper, each of the people to whom Dumbledore had confided Grimmauld Place's location had become a Secret-Keeper in turn."
Besides the fact that this contradicted what she herself said while writing Book 7, the characters were oblivious to what it meant.
Either they should have been convinced Snape was a Death Eater, or Snape was working against Voldemort.
If they were convinced Snape was a Death Eater, page 91 and following should have reflected the obvious conclusions:
"Since I'm convinced Snape's working for Voldemoldy, and tells him everything important, obviously he's ALREADY told him all about
12 Grimmauld Place. Therefore, Death Eaters are on their way now and I have to pack."
If the non-arrival of Death Eaters made it obvious Snape was ABLE to give away the location and DIDN'T, the rest of the book
should have reflected the obvious conclusions:
"Since Death Eaters haven't already arrived, Snape's sitting on the Secret he's Keeping, and therefore he's not REALLY working for the
Volderoni."
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheHighWay
I don't know that she is contradicting herself here. When the secret-keeper dies, at that point, all who knew the secret, still know it, but nobody else. In the book she just expands that to say that now each one who knew the info, can TELL the info, which they couldn't before.
They knew exactly what it meant. They had decided Snape was definately working for Voldemort (after killing DD) and they not only vacated HQ but set a tongue-tying curse on anyone who entered. It describes Harry, Ron, and Hermione experiencing said curse, and implies that Snape had already rummaged the house, therefore was subjected to the curse. I believe it is Lupin that later says Snape obviously didn't tell because the death-eaters are simply hanging around on the outside hoping to see someone coming or going. They didn't know it was HQ for the Order, they just knew it was Sirius' residence and had been willed to Harry, so they thought he might show up there.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
The Fidelius Charm means ONLY THE SECRET-KEEPER can tell-and no one else.
One Secret-Keeper means ONE person can tell- by speaking or by writing a note as in Book 5 when Harry arrives at
12 Grimmauld Place.
Her website specifies that once a Secret-Keeper dies, there's ZERO Secret-Keepers.
NOBODY else can learn. (Unless, say, an old note was found.)
The book specifies that now there's OVER A DOZEN Secret-Keepers, and ALL of them can tell.
The status of the secret is now fluid, and not fixed, and will not
"remain as it was at the moment of their death."
New people CAN learn-and as we saw, DID learn.
Right. But they had a LONG time where Harry, Ron, Hermione were hanging out IN 12 Grimmauld Place,
and they STILL thought Snape was a traitor, but they STILL were living there.
If so, they should NOT have felt secure-they should have expected an ALL-OUT ATTACK like the "Seven Potters" chapter.
If they felt secure-they should have concluded Snape wasn't a traitor.
How comfy could you be, setting up to live in a place you expect should be flattened in a mortar attack without warning?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
rascal
I just really really enjoyed it. I have been re reading it and marveling at what I missed the first time. I got kind of chilled when I realised that BOTH Harry and voldy were stunned when he tried to kill him....I mean I knew that the thing was a piece of him...I guess I figured it was just one of the horcrux pieces....when I re read and realised that was all that was left of him...what he would be like forever...that Harry tried to get him to show some remorse....whew. That Nevill got to kill the snake...I loved what a comfort Luna was....how she ended up being pretty special after all.
I also teared up...when harry referred to his son whom he had named after snape....the man he had hated for so many years ...as the bravest man he had ever known.
I was suprised at how sad I was at dobby`s death...how tickled I was at Kreachers turn around, how I loved that Nevill had become a leader.
My daughter and I marveled at how emotionally attached we had become to these made up fairy tail creatures and characters....maaaaaaaaaaan
I am sorry that it was a dissapointment to you ww.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
hiway29
This was by far my favorite in the series. It sustained an 'anything can happen' feel throughout, and kept me turning pages when I should have been doing other stuff. That rarely happens these days.
I am not the Potter scholar that others are, so maybe I didn't 'know better'. I just thought it a ripping good yarn.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
I agree with rascal: I wasn't disappointed at all.
I loved Kreacher and Dobby. They were awesome (and they justified all that nonsense in previous books about Hermione's concern for the house elves).
I guess I never clamored for any more information on the veil: I figured Sirius was dead and that was the end of that. And I took the "avada kedavra" and green burst of light in the OTP movie as confirmation that Rowling wanted us to believe Sirius was quite simply dead.
So there are holes. Yup. But no bigger (or smaller) than the holes in Star Wars (like how does Obi-Wan not know in ESB that Luke was NOT their last hope).
The bad thing about the deaths of Lupin and Tonks is that we don't get to see it and will never know exactly how heroically they died. The good thing about that, though, is that it reinforces the scene as breakneck-fast, an actual battle with lots going on at once, and Harry only being able to see but so much of it and having little to no time to react to it until it is pretty much over.
The "effin" and "bitch" lines were unnecessary, I thought. Rowling's epilogue is written with a child in mind, and the rest of the book should have kept that in mind, too. As an adult, I don't mind the use of those words. But when i think of the rest of the audience, particularly the youngest, I'm disappointed.
And the more I think of the epilogue, the less I like it. It only scratches the surface of what we'd like to know about their futures. It doesn't even tell us whether our three heroes GRADUATED, for Pete's sake. Did they get honorary degrees or something?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Most of Book 5 was the tail wagging the dog. 1/2 the book was dragging the plot to put the gang in the Dept of Mysteries,
where there was a fight over the prophecy, and all the rooms there. The Death Room and the Door-That-Is-Never-Opened
were inserted into the story rather conspicuously.
Neither reference was needed. For a dramatic scene, it would have worked AT LEAST as good if she used the
Avada Kedavra in the book.
And the book distinctly does NOT use that.
Bellatrix fires a red Stunner.
Bellatrix follows up immediately with a follow-up, which is seen by Harry and the color is unspecified, but the effect is not
the same as the AK, and it pushed Sirius.
Harry saw it and didn't identify it as the green AK, and the effect didn't match. Plus, Harry expected to see Sirius get up.
So, in the book, it was NOT an AK, and was PROBABLY a Stunner.
And if it was SUPPOSED to be an AK, it was VERY poorly handled-since all ways to identify it were missing.
(The colour, the effect, Harry expecting to see Sirius awake...)
Then the question is, does going thru the Veil and Arch kill someone or trap them?
If it traps them, then Harry has a reason to undertake the step in the Hero's Journey where, like Orpheus, Hercules and
others, he descends to the Underworld to perform a rescue.
It seemed foreshadowed in the other books...
Book 1: Harry, Ron and Hermione (the Golden Trio) bypass a 3-headed dog (from Greece), and descend into a dark
chamber below.
Book 2: The Golden Trio pass a heavy veil, interact with the dead, and return safely (Nick's Deathday Party.)
Book 3: A dead man returns (Wormtail.)
Book 4: A dead man returns fully from the dead, in a graveyard (Voldymoldy).
The first 2, at least, seem to point in that direction.
If it just kills them, then the entire introduction of this chamber is completely needless- Bellatrix could have
fired the AK and just hit him with it.
(Apparently, the director of Movie 5 saw it the same way, and just used it there.)
Further, I object to JKR's elaborate evasions of whether or not Sirius is dead, when she said Dumbledore was
dead outright. She went to a lot of trouble to avoid saying it one way or the other.
That's a separate discussion. I think Book 7 had a higher concentration of holes than any one SW movie.And I thought the pacing was off. My best explanation: "It was late, and JKR was tired."
It felt like she just added their deaths in when she tallied it up and said "Not enough deaths..."
BTW, earlier today, she confirmed that one of them was one of the two that she chose to kill off instead of letting him live.
You forgot "Enough....effing.....OWLS!" -Vernon Dursley in Book 2. (I think it was 2, with all the notes.)And you didn't recognize the line from Aliens?
I saw teenagers citing it!
Ripley:"GET AWAY FROM HER, YOU BITCH!"
Some of them voted the HP line "Best line ever!" for reasons I find insufficient.
It WAS supposed to be aimed at a young audience.
The line I liked was a callback from Book 1. "Are you a wizard or not?"- Hermione to Ron,
calling back Hermione's dilemma as to how to start a fire to free Ron from the Devil's Snare.
Hermione:"...but there's no wood!"
Harry:"ARE YOU A WITCH OR NOT?"
It's roughly what I expected, and saccharine enough to end a story meant for kids.
Me, I'm working my way through the Dresden Files while I wait for the greatly-superior "Wheel of Time" series' last book.
HP was largely to keep me occupied while waiting for Wheel of Time books.
Oh, and those of you who loved this one, congratulations! More power to you! I'm glad you got more enjoyment than I did.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
hiway29
For someone who doesn't like the books, you sure have made some study of them !
Your 'congratulations' to those who liked the book seems a bit condescending.
I'm sure that wasn't your intent, however.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
This space for rent
Edited by RafLink to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Oh goody.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19959323/
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
I had more fun deconstructing the magic system and sleuthing the clues than I did anything else.
I never said I didn't LIKE the books, but I'm not a diehard fan-you won't see me buying wizard robes or
a wand (which they make.)
No, I meant what I said-
I didn't like the last book particularly, but I'm glad SOME people did. We were all looking forward to liking it,
and some of us did, and I'm happy for them.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
rascal
I`m sorry that you didn`t wolf. I noticed the poll on mugglenet that most people seemed to like it....but that there were some like you who were dissapointed.
I guess that I am not very analylitical. I just enjoyed following where the story went. I spent most of my time trying to not go nuts and fly through the book at one sitting (I finally gave up after five chapters and finished it lol) I mostly wanted for snape to be good, I wanted to know that there was a real plan why Dumbledor had to die...I wanted to know why Dobby was important....I loved that Neville finally came into his own with his gran...
I loved reading the back ground on Dumbledor....his family, what made him the guy that he was. I loved the developing of his brother, how so different yet still on the same side....I was infuriated that rita skeeter was allowed to trash him...in short I was completely engrossed and involved with the story
Maybe it lagged in the middle, but it seemed necessary information....What I haven`t figured out yet was why they didn`t just dissaperate from the dragon rather than waiting for it to get close to the ground.
The overwhelming feeling that I had when I finished the very last page and closed the book was just wishing that I could Thank the author for a real treat.....in my opinion a once in a life time pleasure.
I seriously do not see myself ever getting involved with a series or story this enthusiastically again....and to think...I only started reading it to determine it`s suitability for my children and ensure that there was no chance of spiritual contamination....lol
Link to comment
Share on other sites
rascal
Gulp .... maybe I am a little more like Luna than I am willing to admit
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Different expectations. That's why I didn't mind the last chapter, but some people did.
I expected it after reading Book 5-at least the basic content (years later...)
I had worked out that DD was already GOING to die, and dying that way preserved Snape's "cover",so that was no surprise to me. Neville started coming along nicely starting Book 5, when he was
able to get out of his parents' shadow and apply himself. I really expected him to get Narcissa
in the big fight scene-he almost seemed to be training for that in the DA.
Considering what she left out, I found the entire "deathly hallows" subplot to not only be unnecessary and
steal time from the main plot, I found it muddied the story. If she was leaving other things out
to save space and time, I see no reason to include this when it seems to have been needless.
(I say the wand business could just have been written differently.)
My thinking is that Disapparition has to be done from a stable platform, with relatively little movement, So, youcould disapparate on a train when it's stopped, or a plane in an airport, but not either when they're in
motion because that could drop you moving at the same speed or do some more harmful thing like
automatically "splinch" you. (Where there's a good shot of an explanation, I DO give the benefit of
the doubt.)
Congrats. That's a rare feeling for me.
If you're looking for another series to immerse yourself in, I'd recommend Robert Jordan's "Wheel of Time"
series, starting with the first book, "Eye of the World."
(It's not perfect, but I give it high marks. The second book does drag a bit, which I dislike, but that doesn't ruin
the second book.)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
rascal
Word wolf, thank you for that recommendation. I will look into it. You are right different people enjoy different aspects of the story. I really admire your analytical ability, the way you keep facts and story lines straight, how you pick up the tiny details. I am sorry that the story fell short in those areas.
I guess that the characters over time become very real to me, when she gives added back ground, it`s kind of like finding out more about a very dear friend.
I liked that the concept of deathly hallows was so foreign to me....that I couldn`t see where things were possibly going to go...that I was guessing right up untill the end as to the out come.
I kind of liked when short plump and for the most part kindly Mrs. W said that the b-tch was hers....being a mother I kind of identified with the rage of someone daring to threaten one of my youngsters...lol....it kind of intensified the whole scenario in my mind....
I liked reading about the families afterwards too.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
ChasUFarley
Okay finally finished the book and here's my thoughts - let's see what you think, WordWolf and you other Muggles out there...
I loved the info about Harry's parents and the chapter about Godric's Hallow but it wasn't easy to follow when Bathilda Bagshot was being used like a puppet by Nagini/Voldy. I take it she was turned into nephari (sp?)... but it took some reading and re-reading to get there...
What exactly happened at King's Cross - was that just inside Harry's head?
I was disappointed in some of the characters who had "crossed over" to Voldy's side - i.e. X. Lovegood.
I found it very interesting when Snape died that something silver came out his face/mouth that Harry was able to collect in a bottle and later on we find out that it was a memory. I don't recall that happening in any of the other books. But it did provide an interesting memory for Harry & Co to explore to discover the truth about Snape and DD's murder/assisted suicide.
It was rather sad to read about the torch that Snape carried for Lilly - no suprise there, as it was hinted about in previous books.
I would have liked more information about the Dept of Mysteries, like WordWolf wrote about - I found that to be a little disappointing...
I LOVED how Molly Weasley opened up a can of whoop@$$ on Bellatrix.
Also liked it when Greyback got OK'd - couldn't stand that character!
Wondered about how Geroge Weasley got on without Fred - wish there had been more on that in the "19 years later" chapter...
More to post but hubby wants the 'puter... :-)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
I think you meant an "inferi." We saw inferi at the end of Book 6, in the locket's cave. They appear to be mindless zombies.
Bathilda Bagshot's situation was never explained, but she was definitely not "mindless". She had a programmed personality,
and had Nagini implanted in her. No explanation was even suggested as to how that would work, not in any book,
(including "'Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find them' by Newt Scamander")
nor her website, nor any interview.
In a word, yes. It was perhaps in his soul, perhaps in his mind, but either way, it didn't happen anywhere except Harry'sperceptions.
It's a little different from the beginning of the third Matrix movie in that respect, but otherwise similar in that it
had the hero temporarily stranded between life and death at a train station.
He didn't SEEM like the kind to cave in normally, did he? Then again, he was trying to save his daughter.
Well, it's not completely conflicting with the descriptions. Memories have been extracted- in the form of silver strands-and captured in bottles. We saw the strands in Book 4 (Dumbledore trying to divine the mystery before him, using the Pen-Sieve),
Book 5 (Snape separating some memories when "teaching" Harry Occlumency)
and Book 6 (Slughorn's memory.)
We saw memories in a bottle all through Book 6, during Dumbledore's private sessions with Harry.
I took the non-strand aspect to be Snape struggling to pass them along before he died-rather than the wand-technique used in the other books.
I thought the supposed hints could have been taken either way, and found there was insufficient support to back them
without the memories in Book 7.
The hints WERE discussed by fans, and the ones I discussed were two:
A) Why was "Snape's worst memory" his WORST memory? (Book 5)
The argument FOR was him driving off Lily.
The argument AGAINST was the abject humiliation Snape was suffering.
B) Book 5, "Dudley Demented." When Harry was explaining about the attack by the Dementors, Vernon Dursley asked what a Dementor was.
Petunia immediately rattled off "The guard the wizard prison Azkaban" (I may have paraphrased slightly.)
When everyone stared at her in shock, she explained she had overheard "that horrid boy" explain that to Lily.
The question was: was Snape the "horrid boy" instead of James Potter?
The argument FOR was that James doesn't seem like a "horrid boy", and why else would Snape be horrified the Potters were killed?
The argument AGAINST was that Petunia was negative on all magic, so ANY wizard would be "horrid", and there's no reason to suppose
Snape ever MET Lily outside of Hogwarts or interacted with her in there, even. (In "Snape's Worst Memory", a stranger might have
told James to stop bullying Snape, since it was wrong.) Further, Snape owed James a life-debt, and then was responsible for his death.
Personally, I don't think there was much substance to the hints. They're obvious if you know exactly what information is critical and
which to ignore, which is to say, almost-coincidental.
I also think that it made no sense for Snape to insult Tonks for her Patronus changing shape to correspond to the person she loved,
when his had been so for years. The argument for him saying that is that Snape can be a real a-hole sometimes, but I find that
SPECIFIC barb out-of-character. Finally, the only things connecting Lily with a doe is that she was married to Prongs. This meant
he needed to know about Prongs, first of all, which he seemed to be, at least by the time of the series.
(Book 3, his comments to Lupin about the parchment by Wormtail, Moony, Padfoot and Prongs. "I think he got that parchment
FROM THE MANUFACTURERS." He seemed to know he was addressing one of them...)
However, of all things, Snape hated James, loved Lily, and defined Lily in terms of her marriage to James?
I find that inconsistent. If there was some direct connection between Lily and the doe, that would be different.
However, we have no reason to suspect she was also an Animagus, especially since it was so difficult, they are so rare,
and her strength was in CHARMS, like her wand, while James' was in TRANSFIGURATION, like his wand.
A lot of fans loved it, many BECAUSE of the profanity.Fenrir Greyback and Bellatrix Lestrange were the sickest followers of Voldemort, and HAD to go.
Ron Weasley joined George as proprietors at Weasleys Wizarding Wheezes.
She mentioned that in one of the interviews.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
I just spent 2 1/2 weeks reading all seven books. I enjoyed them, maybe when I recover
I'll go back and analyze them!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
ChasUFarley
(Acually, hubby and I had just had a deep conversation about Nephlim in mythology just before I posted - I twisted my words. Whoops!)
I can totally relate but my understanding is that they could be made to do Voldy's will. That's why I thought she might be inferi.
I respectfully disagree there only because there was certainly a history between them. Lilly saved Snape from James & Co's prank on him where he was turned upside down. Snape was less than kind to her but wasn't as "hateful" as you would expect him to be. The memory was painful to him becuase he was humiliated in front of someone he had feelings for, in my opinion - that made it even worse. There were small details that made it seem possible - not just "wishful thinking"...Since the reference is to the word "boy", I would assume this is talking about Snape, not James. Lily didn't date James until after they were out of school. Interesting... hmmm...
Well, yes. Wouldn't Snape have known the nicknames from Wormtail himself, considering that's what Voldy called him? It's certain that the nicknames could have been used when the four were not in their animal states but could have likely been used as "pet" names for each other. Snape knew Lupin was a werewolf BEFORE he came on staff at Hogwarts, so it only makes sense.As for Tonks' Patronus and Snape's snide comment - I took it that he knew Tonks was basically rejected by Lupin at that time, who didn't want to get involved with her due to his "condition" and because he felt he was too old for her. Snape may have also done it because he knew Tonks was a pureblood, a relative of Bella and Cissa (a niece of theirs, I believe.) I took it as a dig - something he did quite often to all those around him (Harry, Ron, etc.)
I've always like Molly's character and knew she was strong. The profanity had nothing to do with my liking it - it was just a good duel.
Question: Who raises Tonk's and Lupin's baby?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
We interpret the information differently.
It's not expressly stated, AFAIK, but the implications are they DID, in their 7th year, when they were Head Boy andHead Girl. I'd have to reread Book 5, when Sirius described how James' head finally deflated to know.
I'll reread it eventually.
I expect he knew as a result of the incident where James saved his life-mentioned in Book 3.
Good point about what Wormtail knew, the Death Eaters knew. It's come up when discussing the reference to
"the Animagus Black" in the fight between the OotP and the DEs in Book 5.
We agree it was a dig-I just think that there's a difference between"Snape loathed James and took it out on Harry"
and
"Snape sure was a real a-hole."
I think this specific incident moves him into the second category.
The common thinking is Ted Tonks, the muggleborn, will do it, since he's still alive.
The running gag is that the kid will be a werewolf with hair that changes colour all the time.
So, what do you think of the connection between the doe and Lily Potter?
What is the connection? And what should Snape's response to it be?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
ChasUFarley
I'm not sure on the connection between the doe and Lilly Potter. There's many doe/stag references in mythology, and perhaps that's part of it. When I first read of James' stag Patronus I was reminded of C. S. Lewis' "The Lion, The Witch, and the Wardrobe" story. It's never mentioned if Lilly had a different Patronus prior to her and James becoming a couple. Since Snape carried a torch for Lilly, it is interesting that his Patronus was what her's once was... but again, it's never mentioned before what it might have been prior. More interesting is the dig that Snape gives Tonks - even tho he was in the same boat, eh?
Question: What's up with the curse(?) of the "ghost" of Dumbledore at 12 Grimmauld Place coming out everytime someone new comes in the house??
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
It was never stated Lily HAD a Patronus. Not every wizard DOES- only those that master the Patronus Charm.
We can safely infer she DID have one because her wand was good for Charms (therefore, it was a strength of HERS as well)
and she was a member of the Order-and their standard method of communication was the Patronus Charm.
JKR said this on her website a few times, and we saw Kingsley use it in Book 7 in the manner they did.
(We saw the delivery end in Book 4 and Book 6, by Dumbledore and Tonks, respectively.)
I still feel that dig was inconsistent with the complete picture of Snape-since I feel it elevates him from "annoying"to "a-hole". However, I'm not the author, and it IS open to interpretation.
It was explained partly in Book 7. I forget if it was Kingsley who cast it (was it Mad-Eye?)
It was, in effect, a magical trap, programmed to reset and attack, trying to hit Snape.
I'll have to be in the mood to read the book a second time to know for sure, and that hasn't happened yet.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
rascal
oooh ICK....sigh
After years and years of being a HUGE fan.....I read yesterday that Rowling said Dumbledor was gay...that he was in love with grindenwald...blech
Grrrrr..... I KNOW that it shouldn`t matter ...sigh but I have to admit it does alter my perception and feelings.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
hiway29
why ?
I mean, really, who cares?
She'll now get vilified by the religious right, but there is nothing in the books themselves to corrupt young minds. At least in that regard. Kids may all turn into witches, though I don't think they'll have much luck shouting 'stupefy' !
I think most writers have ideas about their characters as they write them, that don't always come out on the page.If that's what she had in mind for Dumbledore, then so be it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.