Author Topic: Harry Potter 7 :: WARNING!!! :: SPOILERS INSIDE!!! :: (Read 36626 times)

Russell Nash · **on:** July 19, 2007, 09:05:18 AM

I'm throwing out a proposal here and I hope everyone is up for it.

No matter what any of us think about this series, starting saturday there is going to be a lot of disscussion about how Rowling decided to end the series. I would like to request that all talk about that be limited to this thread. None of us needs to be reading through a thread for the next story and read, "just like in HP 7 when…".

Some of us will be finished this book by saturday afternoon, Some of us will take our time , and some of us won't get to it for a long time. Let's all try and be considerate.

Everything posted in this thread after friday night should be considered to be loaded with spoilers.

Russell Nash · **Reply #1 on:** July 19, 2007, 09:10:53 AM

NPR asked a bunch of kids about this problem.

DKT · **Reply #2 on:** July 19, 2007, 06:41:09 PM

Thanks, dude. I'm at the point now where if I see anything about Harry Potter 7 online, I close the window. I'll check back in here after I finish Deathly Hallows (which will probably take a little longer than the average Escape Artist).

Bdoomed · **Reply #3 on:** July 19, 2007, 10:22:09 PM

anyone who spoils it will be severly hated by many, and punished by whatever means i can do as a mod (dunno what that is tho

)

Heradel · **Reply #4 on:** July 20, 2007, 03:39:18 AM

How about no one post anything with spoilers until at least noon Saturday? That should be about when the church-of-the-all-night-tool'ers should be done.

Russell Nash · **Reply #5 on:** July 20, 2007, 08:15:51 AM

Let's just let this be the free-for-all thread, and be nice everywhere else. There are going to be people who need to talk about it. I just wanted them to have a place to vent.

There's already a review in the NYTimes. You made need to sign up to read it, but I've done that and there are no spams or anything. I haven't read it. I don't know about spoilers.

Listener · **Reply #6 on:** July 20, 2007, 02:31:49 PM

If anyone's interested, we've put together a special section on 11Alive.com, guaranteed spoiler-free in that you won't actually see any spoilers ON the page, though you can click to places where you can see them if you want.

http://www.11alive.com/life/article_life.aspx?storyid=100343

I'm mostly curious about whether it's going to be a year at Hogwarts or a shorter book (timewise) in that, ie, Harry searches for the Horcruxes through, say, November, then has the final battle in December or somesuch.

My wife has read the ending (spoilers) and has been kind enough not to share them with me, for which I am glad. My book is coming in the mail tomorrow, and I plan to stay away from any current TV, internet, or radio until I've finished it. We have plenty of stuff on TiVo and tape to watch, and of course baby to play with.

After HP5 got spoiled for me accidentally by TotalFark, the above policy is the one I took with HP6 and it served me well.

Heradel · **Reply #7 on:** July 20, 2007, 07:51:53 PM

I have to say, I love the Times, I have a college prof. that works there, I would love to work there, but I was downright pissed at them for posting a review on the mainpage. Granted, only a short blurb was there, but after a while of going to the site, well, reading/scanning is automatic, and I'd gotten through half of it before realizing what it was.

DKT · **Reply #8 on:** July 20, 2007, 08:04:13 PM

Why? Did it give a lot of spoilers?

(If you haven't read Half-Blood Prince, DO NOT continue reading. Even though I suspsect everyone reading this has read it already.)

When Goblet of Fire came out in the theaters, I remember thumbing threw an Entertainment Weekly with Harry Potter on the cover (this was around the time Half-Blood Prince came out). I looked at one of the sidebars in the article and misread: Don't read this if you haven't read Half Blood Prince to read Don't read this if you haven't read Goblet of Fire. And I read the sidebar because I thought, bah, I've read Goblet of Fire -- I don't care if they spoil the movie...I want to know if it's going to be good or not. And then I read about Snape killing Dumbledore and thought, who the HELL wrote the adaptation for this one? Snape never did that. Then I went and reread the spoiler warning and it all sunk in...

I'd already blown the ending and I hadn't even started reading the book (my wife still had it).

Listener · **Reply #9 on:** July 20, 2007, 08:07:30 PM

Some asshat friended my Wizard Rock band's MySpace* just to post the spoilers. Three times.

I saw the word VOLDEMORT and I saw the word PAGE and I immediately looked down and changed windows to a different browser. Then I had a coworker who doesn't care about Harry Potter go in for me and delete the spoilers.

So watch out... people are being asshats and ruining it for everyone.

Speaking of Wizard Rock... Enjoy...

* don't laugh... oh, okay, laugh, go ahead

DKT · **Reply #10 on:** July 20, 2007, 08:53:49 PM

So...which band is yours?

Bdoomed · **Reply #11 on:** July 21, 2007, 03:54:46 AM

Im gettin HP7 in the mail tomorrow too! and im plannin on readin it before i go to work (Coldstone if anyone is wondering), during work, and after work. Im gonna absorb everything i can

and im staying away from youtube and all those other collective sites. scary stuff there.

i almost had the end of HP6 ruined for me but i got away in time. heh. i remember reading that part and i was SOOO shocked. i recently (last week) reread hp6 to remember stuff, and i realized how much i loved the books. i read 250+ pages in 3 hours... from 12am-3am. 3 nights in a row... ^_^

Heradel · **Reply #12 on:** July 21, 2007, 10:03:28 AM

Finished. 5 hours, 30 minuteish. It's good, and it gives a measure of closure that's comforting.

Er, spoilers below, in white and small if I do it right. After the next cycle of the sun I'll take it out.

Well, I was reading quickly, and some bits tended to go a bit wonky, but I suspect that's more the remnants of my fever/cough and my falling out of practice of staying up all night when at home from college. I'll probably go back and reread it, slower, after I sleep for some period of time. I do wonder if Harry was always meant to live, though he always did have to die.

I'll note I ramble at 6am.

I have a feeling the epilogue was a gift to the fan fic'ers.

Now sleep.

Roney · **Reply #13 on:** July 21, 2007, 10:10:06 PM

This whole circus is fun even for those of us who don't read Potter. It reminds me of feeding time at the zoo.

I don't mean that to sound insulting: it's like being around kids at Christmas, and the excitement is infectious.

Are the books really that good, or just addictive?

Heradel · **Reply #14 on:** July 22, 2007, 12:19:28 AM

They're good. Better as they went along, but that's to be expected. Addicting's not quite the right word, just spellbinding, like any other book.

It's more of a my generation thing, because the books grew up with (or really, about 2 years behind) me/us.

eytanz · **Reply #15 on:** July 22, 2007, 12:57:00 AM

I wouldn't pin it too much on the generation thing - I was 21 when I read the first book, and I'm 30 now, and I still found them very good. Not perfect, but no less worthy of the fan following than, say, the Lord of the Rings or the Narnia books are worthy of their own followings.

I just finished reading the 7th book, which I read cover to cover in about 6 hours. I enjoyed it very much. I felt it managed to close most of the loose ends from previous novels in a very satisfactory manner, though a lot of the characters sort of got shunted to the sidelines.

ClintMemo · **Reply #16 on:** July 23, 2007, 11:40:34 AM

It's either going to be a very long and very expensive movie or they are going to have to cut a LOT of things out.
I did enjoy the book, though.

However you feel about the Harry Potter series, you have to give J.K. Rowling a lot of praise just for getting kids to read. 15 years ago, you couldn't get most U.S. kids into a bookstore and now they think it's cool to be reading Harry Potter. That's a gigantic turn-around.

Bdoomed · **Reply #17 on:** July 23, 2007, 06:19:20 PM

Finiiiiished! I read from 12:30 to 5:22am last night... yawn. But i just couldnt put it down!
I dont know what it is about them but i just love em!

Listener · **Reply #18 on:** July 23, 2007, 06:23:44 PM

Is it safe to discuss spoiler-type stuff yet?

I have one thing that wasn't really a spoiler, but was the only thing that really surprised me, and it happened in the first few chapters:

Ginny was about to give it up to Harry. I actually LOL'd.

Finished it in about five non-consecutive hours. I can say it lived up to the hype, which was massive, so that's quite high praise, although some things happened that I wasn't really a fan of.

Commentary with spoilers: http://listener42.livejournal.com/17631.html

Heradel · **Reply #19 on:** July 23, 2007, 08:49:14 PM

Let's say that if you read any father than this line, you're accepting that there are spoilers that are going to be posted. Maybe Russell Nash can post that in the topic or we could do a separate spoiler thread?

ClintMemo · **Reply #20 on:** July 23, 2007, 10:03:59 PM

Just to make it obvious

THERE ARE SPOILERS BEYOND HERE

There, that should do it.

ClintMemo · **Reply #21 on:** July 23, 2007, 10:04:27 PM

And just to make it official - Voldomort dies.

Swamp · **Reply #22 on:** July 23, 2007, 11:06:02 PM

You forgot about people who monitor the forums via most recent posts.

Bdoomed · **Reply #23 on:** July 23, 2007, 11:16:12 PM

true...
ill edit the title of this thread to say WARNING: SPOILERS INSIDE!

done!

anyways, the last few chapters were REALLY good! From Gringotts onwards i could not put the book down (and then it was 5:30 and i finally finished)
FREEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEED!!!!

Listener · **Reply #24 on:** July 24, 2007, 03:22:22 PM

Here's my take:

The only thing that really and truly surprised me about Harry Potter 7 was that Ginny almost gave Harry her virginity.

I was also rather pissed about the Muggle Studies professor getting a name. Dammit.

On the whole, I was very pleased, but toward the middle, Rowling pulled a Laurell K. Hamilton. In the three Anita Blake books before "The Harlequin", which was very good, Hamilton basically pulls new powers for Anita out of thin air. It's like, oops, now she's even more powerful because of x, y, or z. Well, the Deathly Hallows are the same way. All of a sudden, Harry learns about this power that could rival Horcruxes. A little frustrating.

Also, the penultimate chapter was kind of upsetting in that I felt it was almost too much deus ex machina. When you go back through Star Wars I-III, you see where Lucas laid in bits to lead to IV-VI. In HP7, you get paid back for almost every seemingly useless detail of the past five books. But you also have to keep track of all of it. The whole thing where "Dumbledore" explains to Harry what just happened..? Come on.

I also think Chapter 35 totally cheapened Harry's sacrifice.

How I think it should have ended, before I even read HP7: Harry and Voldemort fight. Voldemort mortally wounds Harry in Snape's presence, and Harry survives just long enough to see Snape kill Voldemort. But since Harry was the only witness to it, no one but the reader knows Snape really wasn't evil.

And then, what I think should have happened after Chapter 34: After Voldemort kills Harry -- really kills him -- he goes back to the school, fully intent on breaking his word and subjugating everyone who stood against him. Chapter 35 is nonexistent. Back at the school, all the same stuff happens except that Harry doesn't wake up. Also, we see that Neville has some sort of curse mark on him -- like, on his arm or something -- that he gets while fighting the Death Eaters. He kills Nagini, like Harry said he should, and then takes out Voldemort. They explain that his birthday was also July 31, and his parents thrice defied Voldemort, and look, here's a mark to mark him as his equal.

And finally... all that wandlore stuff felt to me like Rowling had written herself into a bit of a corner and needed a way out.

All that being said, I actually did like the book quite a lot. I had a few HA! moments, and for a second I was actually afraid that some fanfic would come true in that Snape and Lily were good friends until the end of 5th year, and I was kind of worried that they'd reconcile and we'd see that Snape was really Harry's father.

Overall, I think the book lived up to the hype, which is very high praise given just how much hype there was.

My friend Holly said she thinks HP7 is a very visual book that will play well as a film -- although I think it will have to be almost three full hours long, maybe even more -- but she worries that HP6 is so talky that huge chunks of it will be cut out so as not to bore people.

DKT · **Reply #25 on:** July 24, 2007, 04:17:05 PM

I just finished it last night and I'm still trying to absorb it all. To sum up, I loved it.

I was surprised by several of the deaths and how well she played them, especially after saying there would be 2 deaths in the book... Killing Mad-Eye and Hedwig at the beginning set the tone for the book. When Dobby died, I was sad, but I thought, at least no one else will die. Killing Fred will probably leave me pretty haunted for a while. And of course, I was epecially sad to see my favorite charachter (Lupin) die (off-screen, no less) but I had a feeling that was coming. And Tonks and Creevy and everyone else.

I'm glad Harry survived and Neville wasn't the chosen one. I thought it was awesome that Neville killed Nagini, though. That was one of the best scenes in the book and I almost stood up on my couch (although, I thought pretty much everything from when they showed up in Hogsmeade on was awesome, which is high praise since I was already loving the book). And everyone showing up at Hogwarts at the end was magnificent. It made me smile to see people like Oliver Wood again. I loved Mrs. Weasley calling Bellatrix a bitch and then smiting her. I did not expect that.

The only thing that bugged me a bit was that I wanted to see more of Snape. I was in the camp that was pretty sure he was working on Dumbledore's orders the whole way through, but I thought we'd get to see him do something a little more heroic in the last battle. Still, that made Snape dying when he did all the more surprising. And Rowling did a fantastic job explaining why Dumbledore told Snape to kill him (which was something I was worried about). Okay, I was also bummed Lupid didn't kick Greyback's ass. And I coulda done with more Ginny, but those are really small complaints considering the high expectations I had (and everyone else, who had certain things they wanted to see, ie, Listener hoping Neville was the real chosen one, etc.). It was a very good show and I couldn't be much happier with how this final volume turned out.

But I have to say, this is probably the most satisfying conclusion to a series that I've ever read. And it may very well be my favorite of the series.

I don't think the movie will be able to cut it, unless they hire a director and do a 4 hour cut Peter Jackson-style (I'm kind of surprised they haven't done this since Goblet of Fire).

Listener · **Reply #26 on:** July 24, 2007, 04:32:13 PM

Quote from: DKT on July 24, 2007, 04:17:05 PM

The only thing that bugged me a bit was that I wanted to see more of Snape. I was in the camp that was pretty sure he was working on Dumbledore's orders the whole way through, but I thought we'd get to see him do something a little more heroic in the last battle. Still, that made Snape dying when he did all the more surprising. And Rowling did a fantastic job explaining why Dumbledore told Snape to kill him (which was something I was worried about). Okay, I was also bummed Lupid didn't kick Greyback's ass. And I coulda done with more Ginny, but those are really small complaints considering the high expectations I had (and everyone else, who had certain things they wanted to see, ie, Listener hoping Neville was the real chosen one, etc.). It was a very good show and I couldn't be much happier with how this final volume turned out.

The problem is that the books are third-person-limited... Harry has to be in every scene (except for certain opening chapters in 1, 4, 6, and 7). If he's not at school, we don't see Snape... or Ginny...

I think we all knew in our hearts that Snape wasn't evil. This just confirms it. My dad never believed he was good though.

DKT · **Reply #27 on:** July 24, 2007, 04:41:09 PM

I didn't mean that we'd see him outside of Harry's POV (although we have done that several times in the series). I just meant I thought he'd do something more than die at Harry's feet. Like take some kind of last minute mentor role, or save him again, or something. I guess what I'm saying is that I was surprised that there wasn't more of a reconciliation between Harry and Snape before Snape died (as opposed to after).

Heradel · **Reply #28 on:** July 24, 2007, 05:06:47 PM

Personally, I'd bet that if the books weren't what they were in terms of popularity, Ron probably would have showed up about 20 minutes later. But people read them to pre-teens, so snip.

I didn't really feel that there was that much in the terms of deus ex machina for a book with wizards and wands, and it felt to me like the wand lore bit had been set up in the earlier books.

The last movie was good, even cut down to the extent that it was.

eytanz · **Reply #29 on:** July 24, 2007, 05:35:17 PM

Quote from: DKT on July 24, 2007, 04:17:05 PM

I just finished it last night and I'm still trying to absorb it all. To sum up, I loved it.

I was surprised by several of the deaths and how well she played them, especially after saying there would be 2 deaths in the book... Killing Mad-Eye and Hedwig at the beginning set the tone for the book. When Dobby died, I was sad, but I thought, at least no one else will die. Killing Fred will probably leave me pretty haunted for a while. And of course, I was epecially sad to see my favorite charachter (Lupin) die (off-screen, no less) but I had a feeling that was coming. And Tonks and Creevy and everyone else.

She didn't say that there were 2 deaths - she said there were two that she didn't already intend before starting to write the book. I'm not sure who it was... Probably Lupin and Tonk, or maybe one of them and Creevy. I guess she'll answer that eventually in an interview.

Quote

I'm glad Harry survived and Neville wasn't the chosen one. I thought it was awesome that Neville killed Nagini, though.

I agree 100%. No offense, Listener, but I would have hated to have the ending you describe. I found it much more satsifying to have the victory come from a combination of Harry's willingness for self-sacrifice and Voldemorte's ultimate failure to understand the powers he was dealing with, than if it had come by the fact that the prophecy was about a different person.

Quote

But I have to say, this is probably the most satisfying conclusion to a series that I've ever read. And it may very well be my favorite of the series.

I thought the ending was extremely satisfying. What complaints I have about the book are about the middle - it just drags a bit with too many scenes of the three heros just waiting for some idea of what to do. I would have preferred those trimmed a bit, and maybe more added about other characters at relevant points. I'd like to know the ultimate fate of Umbridge, for instance.

Still, overall an excellent book.

Quote from: Heradel

I didn't really feel that there was that much in the terms of deus ex machina for a book with wizards and wands, and it felt to me like the wand lore bit had been set up in the earlier books.

I agree. Or more accurately, I agree as far as the ending goes. I felt that the deus ex machina part with the wand was really in the beginning, with Harry's wand doing the "I can do magic on my own" bit. It didn't really lead anywhere, either - I can't see why it would have made much of a difference if Harry could have just beaten Voldemorte's wand normally there.

As for the elder wand and its special magic, well, every book in the series so far introduces new magical items that are crucial to the plot. I'd have been surprised if there hadn't been something new.

Bdoomed · **Reply #30 on:** July 24, 2007, 08:42:19 PM

Quote from: eytanz on July 24, 2007, 05:35:17 PM

Quote
I'm glad Harry survived and Neville wasn't the chosen one. I thought it was awesome that Neville killed Nagini, though.

I agree 100%. No offense, Listener, but I would have hated to have the ending you describe. I found it much more satsifying to have the victory come from a combination of Harry's willingness for self-sacrifice and Voldemorte's ultimate failure to understand the powers he was dealing with, than if it had come by the fact that the prophecy was about a different person.

Also, it was explained in the last book that Voldemort fufilled the prophecy by picking out Harry. If Voldemort never heard the prophecy, he would have never killed Harry's parents, and thus Harry would never have cared as much, plus the strange connection they have would never have been made, and Harry would never have had that advantage over Voldemort. Voldemort created his worst enemy, a self-fufilling prophecy.

Also I agree 100% that Neville killing Nagini was the best scene in the book. I pictured a cool diagonally up slash while shouting, bloodspray, and the rotating head of Nagini in midair like the 300 scene w/ Xerxes punishing his subordinates.

As for a movie on this, they could cut out most of the useless isolated tent stuff. They could cut out most of the arguments, the planning, all that stuff while on the run. A lot of that was useless fluff that could be easily disposed of as "time passed" "general feeling" in a movie.
it will be interesting to see how they put it into a movie... cant wait for the Battle of Hogwarts scene!
The deaths of Dobby and Fred were probably the hardest to take.

Quote

It's like, oops, now she's even more powerful because of x, y, or z. Well, the Deathly Hallows are the same way. All of a sudden, Harry learns about this power that could rival Horcruxes. A little frustrating.

Yea but in the end, he ignores the power of the Hallows, he only uses the resurrection stone to prepare himself for death. And hes been using the cloak ever since book 1. He still destroys all of the horcruxes, and the only point where he "uses" the Hallows is just that he is the rightful owner of the Elder wand. That part wasnt a cop out, it was more of "Voldemort you lack a lot of understanding about this stuff". Voldemort's lack of understanding was his downfall. He didnt realize that Harry was a Horcrux, he didnt know the full extent of the night he killed Harry's parents. That is his major flaw, that is why he loses. Its not because Harry found something more powerful than destroying horcruxes.

Listener · **Reply #31 on:** July 24, 2007, 09:09:02 PM

Quote from: Bdoomed on July 24, 2007, 08:42:19 PM

The deaths of Dobby and Fred were probably the hardest to take.

Yeah, my favorite characters are probably the twins (now the twin, I guess) and Luna, so I was quite sad. I also felt slightly cheated by Tonks and Lupin dying. I mean, we didn't even see it. It just happened.

Quote

Quote
It's like, oops, now she's even more powerful because of x, y, or z. Well, the Deathly Hallows are the same way. All of a sudden, Harry learns about this power that could rival Horcruxes. A little frustrating.
Yea but in the end, he ignores the power of the Hallows, he only uses the resurrection stone to prepare himself for death. And hes been using the cloak ever since book 1. He still destroys all of the horcruxes, and the only point where he "uses" the Hallows is just that he is the rightful owner of the Elder wand. That part wasnt a cop out, it was more of "Voldemort you lack a lot of understanding about this stuff". Voldemort's lack of understanding was his downfall. He didnt realize that Harry was a Horcrux, he didnt know the full extent of the night he killed Harry's parents. That is his major flaw, that is why he loses. Its not because Harry found something more powerful than destroying horcruxes.

I wasn't necessarily saying that the Hallows were used, just that they existed was enough to make me go "blornk *headonside*". Wasn't there enough stuff in the book to help us understand that Harry could destroy the horcruxes anyway? Elder Wand? Okay, I'll buy that. Cloak? Why did it matter where it came from? The fact that it exists was enough for me; I figured already that it was something James inherited, and then passed onto Harry via Dumbledore.

Now that I think about it, I guess the Hallows were necessary, if only for the cool, tribute-to-fans scene with the resurrection stone.

DKT · **Reply #32 on:** July 24, 2007, 09:22:15 PM

Quote from: Listener on July 24, 2007, 09:09:02 PM

Yeah, my favorite characters are probably the twins (now the twin, I guess) and Luna, so I was quite sad. I also felt slightly cheated by Tonks and Lupin dying. I mean, we didn't even see it. It just happened.

Oh, I definitely felt cheated by their off screen deaths (and Moody's, although I wasn't connected to him anywhere near as much) but that was part of what worked so well for me. People are dying all around, people I know and love, and I didn't even get to see it happen. They're just gone.

The father in me had a very hard time with Lupin/Tonks dying and leaving their son alone. Although I also get broken up trying to imagine George without Fred...

Dobby's death shook me up far more than I expected it would.

Bdoomed · **Reply #33 on:** July 24, 2007, 09:51:31 PM

well Lupin/Tonks dying is exactly what happened to Harry (well cept for the whole "voldemort falling" thing), but this time, you're content in knowing that at least their son has a godfather from birth, someone who cares.

FREEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEED!!!!

i cant believe he died...

Quote

In her first tell-all interview since the release of “Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows,” J.K. Rowling told TODAY’s Meredith Vieira she "probably will" publish a Potter encyclopedia, promising many more details about her beloved characters and the fate of the wizarding world beyond the few clues provided in the seventh book’s epilogue.

YAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY! you know we all wanted more. DONT LIE TO YOURSELF!

DKT · **Reply #34 on:** July 24, 2007, 09:53:11 PM

Quote from: Bdoomed on July 24, 2007, 09:51:31 PM

well Lupin/Tonks dying is exactly what happened to Harry (well cept for the whole "voldemort falling" thing), but this time, you're content in knowing that at least their son has a godfather from birth, someone who cares.

Yes, when Lupin asked Harry to be Ted's godfather, I knew Lupin wouldn't make it out of the book alive. Bummer, 'cause I wanted to see Lupin wolf-out one more time.

eytanz · **Reply #35 on:** July 25, 2007, 06:16:00 AM

Quote from: Listener on July 24, 2007, 09:09:02 PM

I wasn't necessarily saying that the Hallows were used, just that they existed was enough to make me go "blornk *headonside*". Wasn't there enough stuff in the book to help us understand that Harry could destroy the horcruxes anyway? Elder Wand? Okay, I'll buy that. Cloak? Why did it matter where it came from? The fact that it exists was enough for me; I figured already that it was something James inherited, and then passed onto Harry via Dumbledore.

Now that I think about it, I guess the Hallows were necessary, if only for the cool, tribute-to-fans scene with the resurrection stone.

I think the point of making the invisiblity cloak a hallow was to underscore them as Dumbledore's weak point. Basically, he makes all the right decisions - except when the hallows are involved. He takes the cloak away from James when he knows the attack is coming - and it is implied that he took it *because* he knew that the attack was coming, knowing he will end up keeping it. This is an echo of how he will later try on the ring, which is probably his stupidest decision ever. The main point of the hallows, I think, were not so much that they are powerful artifacts, but rather that they give Harry something he can surpass both Voldemorte and Dumbledore in - each of those two tries to fight death - Voldemorte his own and Dumbledore that of his loved ones - while only Harry is able to master death by both accepting his own and realizing it mustn't be undone for others.

Listener · **Reply #36 on:** July 25, 2007, 11:47:49 AM

Quote from: DKT on July 24, 2007, 09:22:15 PM

Quote from: Listener on July 24, 2007, 09:09:02 PM
Yeah, my favorite characters are probably the twins (now the twin, I guess) and Luna, so I was quite sad. I also felt slightly cheated by Tonks and Lupin dying. I mean, we didn't even see it. It just happened.

Oh, I definitely felt cheated by their off screen deaths (and Moody's, although I wasn't connected to him anywhere near as much) but that was part of what worked so well for me. People are dying all around, people I know and love, and I didn't even get to see it happen. They're just gone.

The father in me had a very hard time with Lupin/Tonks dying and leaving their son alone. Although I also get broken up trying to imagine George without Fred...

Dobby's death shook me up far more than I expected it would.

Well, by making Harry Ted's godfather at least Lupin made sure someone would be there to look out for the kid (though it meant Lupin was putting a hell of a lot of faith in Harry to win). Of course, he didn't know that Tonks's dad would die, but Tonks's mom is still around and between her and Harry, I think the kid will do all right. Tonks turned out okay, after all, so her mom can't be that bad.

A lot of fanfic addresses the "what happens to the other twin when one dies" question. I rather think George will be depressed for a very, very, very long time. I can see him passing ownership of the shop to Lee Jordan and striking off on his own, maybe working with Charlie in Romania for a while to get away from everything.

And yeah, I almost shed a tear when Dobby died. As a whole I didn't really care for the house-elf subplots of 2 and 4 (though without Dobby, 2 would not have ended quite as well, nor would it have allowed Lucius to be quite as calculatingly evil as he became) but I think in 7 they were handled very well.

Listener · **Reply #37 on:** July 25, 2007, 11:48:54 AM

Quote from: eytanz on July 25, 2007, 06:16:00 AM

Quote from: Listener on July 24, 2007, 09:09:02 PM
I wasn't necessarily saying that the Hallows were used, just that they existed was enough to make me go "blornk *headonside*". Wasn't there enough stuff in the book to help us understand that Harry could destroy the horcruxes anyway? Elder Wand? Okay, I'll buy that. Cloak? Why did it matter where it came from? The fact that it exists was enough for me; I figured already that it was something James inherited, and then passed onto Harry via Dumbledore.

Now that I think about it, I guess the Hallows were necessary, if only for the cool, tribute-to-fans scene with the resurrection stone.

I think the point of making the invisiblity cloak a hallow was to underscore them as Dumbledore's weak point. Basically, he makes all the right decisions - except when the hallows are involved. He takes the cloak away from James when he knows the attack is coming - and it is implied that he took it *because* he knew that the attack was coming, knowing he will end up keeping it. This is an echo of how he will later try on the ring, which is probably his stupidest decision ever. The main point of the hallows, I think, were not so much that they are powerful artifacts, but rather that they give Harry something he can surpass both Voldemorte and Dumbledore in - each of those two tries to fight death - Voldemorte his own and Dumbledore that of his loved ones - while only Harry is able to master death by both accepting his own and realizing it mustn't be undone for others.

When I read what you wrote, I had a flashback to the return of Aslan after the Stone Table scene in "The Lion, The Witch, and The Wardrobe".

Heradel · **Reply #38 on:** July 25, 2007, 07:21:42 PM

I actually liked the part about the Hollows, mainly because it seemed like it pushed the story from little-kid fantasy to a darker adult reality. No, everybody doesn't have an invisibility cloak that "just works" perfectly. Things you've taken for granted aren't like that for everyone else, even in a magical world. Harry had a kinda rosy view of the wizarding world as a child, this one brought in the shades of grey.

slic · **Reply #39 on:** July 26, 2007, 01:14:32 AM

Really enjoyed the book - read it over two days while doing other stuff!

I was glad/unhappy for the Epilogue - glad to see the Happily Ever After, but now any other books - and I'm sure there will be others, just not written by Ms. Rowling - a la Dragonlance, Star Wars, etc, series) - will be less dramatic.

Harry dying and showing up at a train station made perfect sense, but gave me Matrix flashbacks

Quote

...it just drags a bit with too many scenes of the three heros just waiting for some idea of what to do.

I found it dragging as well, but also felt it was an excellent device to make all the readers feel how bored, on edge and frustrated the Three Heroes were. None of this "...and then, 2 months later..." It also made Ron's decision to leave more understanding.

When Ron actually starting doing all those cool things during the battle, I was sure we has going to die!! Thank goodness he didn't.

Bdoomed · **Reply #40 on:** July 26, 2007, 05:21:34 AM

Quote from: slic on July 26, 2007, 01:14:32 AM

When Ron actually starting doing all those cool things during the battle, I was sure we has going to die!! Thank goodness he didn't.

yea, those last few chapters i was REALLY dreading reading. I was scared shitless that Ron or Hermione would die, and while I couldnt put the book down, i also couldnt bear to read those words. thank Rowling they never came!

DKT · **Reply #41 on:** July 26, 2007, 04:31:31 PM

Before I read the book, I figured Ron and Hermione were the only two characters who were pretty safe. I could see Rowling killing just about anybody but them. (I was more worried about the twins and Lupin.) But when Bellatrix was torturing Hermione and Ron was screaming from the basement, my faith stumbled. I was so scared!

slic · **Reply #42 on:** July 26, 2007, 04:37:40 PM

Quote

I figured Ron and Hermione were the only two characters who were pretty safe.

And I had the exact opposite opinion - I was pretty sure one of them were goners! If can't take out the Hero then one of the major sidekicks is an easy consolation...

ClintMemo · **Reply #43 on:** July 26, 2007, 05:02:51 PM

The only things I was sure about was the Harry would live, Voldomort would die and that Ron and Hermaine would end up together (finally).
If she spent seven kids books setting those things up to happen and then killed one of them off, she be the most hated woman alive.
The person I kept expecting to die was Hagrid.

Listener · **Reply #44 on:** July 26, 2007, 06:43:01 PM

Quote from: ClintMemo on July 26, 2007, 05:02:51 PM

The only things I was sure about was the Harry would live, Voldomort would die and that Ron and Hermaine would end up together (finally).
If she spent seven kids books setting those things up to happen and then killed one of them off, she be the most hated woman alive.
The person I kept expecting to die was Hagrid.

Yeah, when he took that dive off the bike, I totally expected him to bite it.

Did anyone else get a Shepherd Book vibe when Hedwig died... like, "this is the death to tell you that we're serious".

slic · **Reply #45 on:** July 26, 2007, 06:51:37 PM

I actually thought the Hedwig death was kinda lame - I get that the owl was Harry's link, blah, blah, but in the end - Hedwig was a pet. Sorry it's dead, but then why didn't Harry just let him out of the cage earlier??

Quote

she be the most hated woman alive.

I'm not so sure that was a concern of hers....

Listener · **Reply #46 on:** July 26, 2007, 07:44:10 PM

Quote from: slic on July 26, 2007, 06:51:37 PM

I actually thought the Hedwig death was kinda lame - I get that the owl was Harry's link, blah, blah, but in the end - Hedwig was a pet. Sorry it's dead, but then why didn't Harry just let him out of the cage earlier??

I dare you to make that comment on our Mike Vick forum threads over where I work. You will be so vilified...

eytanz · **Reply #47 on:** July 26, 2007, 07:48:02 PM

Quote from: slic on July 26, 2007, 06:51:37 PM

I actually thought the Hedwig death was kinda lame - I get that the owl was Harry's link, blah, blah, but in the end - Hedwig was a pet. Sorry it's dead, but then why didn't Harry just let him out of the cage earlier??

I agree that the death was lame, but not because Hedwig was a pet, but because it was just very quickly glossed over - it seemed to mostly be a device to get Hedwig out of the way of the plot, and probably Rowling figured it's better to kill the owl than to have him leave it with the Weasleys and worry about it periodically.

I'm not saying Hedwig should have gotten a momentous death, or that her death detracted from the novel, it just didn't really do so much for the story either.

ClintMemo · **Reply #48 on:** July 26, 2007, 07:59:22 PM

Quote from: Listener on July 26, 2007, 06:43:01 PM

Yeah, when he took that dive off the bike, I totally expected him to bite it.

I didn't expect it until he went after the spiders. I figured that someone big (no pun intended) would die late.
Although...
I didn't expect Mad-eye to die so early. I was certain they were going to find him in Malfoy's castle or that he was going to come back as a zombie or something.
Hedwig's death was kind of glossed over, but it was totally necessary for the plot. Someone would have used it to find Harry.
I was a bit disappointed that Tonks and Lupin died off-screen. She could have at least had someone tell Harry how they died.

I was glad that Longbottom go to do something heroic. I was a bit surprised that he didn't get to kill LeStrange but I suppose everyone expected that so maybe that's why she didn't do it.

I did enjoy the epilogue - especially the bit where Draco nodded his head (or tipped his hat whatever). It really gave it that "the past is the past and everyone has gotten over it and moved on" vibe. Maybe Draco turned out not to be so bad after all. Maybe he just had bad parents.
Of course, it also sets the seed for "Hogwarts: The Next Generation." I'm sure people are already pestering her about doing that. Even if she never writes another Hogwarts story, I can't imagine that she would give up writing.

slic · **Reply #49 on:** July 26, 2007, 09:10:28 PM

Quote from: Listener on July 26, 2007, 07:44:10 PM

Quote from: slic on July 26, 2007, 06:51:37 PM
I actually thought the Hedwig death was kinda lame - I get that the owl was Harry's link, blah, blah, but in the end - Hedwig was a pet. Sorry it's dead, but then why didn't Harry just let him out of the cage earlier??

I dare you to make that comment on our Mike Vick forum threads over where I work. You will be so vilified...

There's a pretty big difference in saying "Your pet died, so sorry but move on" and "it's ok to force animals to kill each other"

I also agree that many deaths were bushed over so quickly, but then I can see the difficulty in how to try and fit them in.

Speaking of Neville's heroics, though, I was a bit confused about his getting the sword out of the Sorting Hat - was that planned, is that why he "threw" himself at Voldemort?

sayeth · **Reply #50 on:** July 26, 2007, 09:41:52 PM

I loved it. I'd put HP7 up in the top 2 or 3 of the series.

Now, it wasn't perfect. The middle chapters, in which Harry et al. just roam around Britain, looking for something to do, were boring and pointless. On the other hand, Rowling could've been imitating the second half of Return of the King, in which Frodo & Sam slowly make their way to Mt. Doom. Of course, making a section of the book specifically so that the reader feels the same drudgery and hopelessness as the characters doesn't make for fun reading, and I wish something more interesting (at least character-wise if not plot-wise) happened in the middle chapters of HP7.

As for who died, I always thought Dobby was a bit annoying, so no loss there. I figured Mad-Eye would die - he's too much of a fighter not to die a heroic death. Apart from that, I was surprised at Fred's death - I thought the twins would be okay after George's maiming, but was also surprised that more characters didn't go to the Underground station in the sky.

The ending was great. As soon as the Hallows were explained by Mr. Lovegood, I guessed this as the ending: Harry would face Voldemort in the final battle, and both would kill each other. Harry, having the cloak, having the stone open "at the close", and upon V's death, having the wand, would be returned to life by the convergence of the Deathly Hallows after a chapter full of mourning by Ginny, Ron, Hermione, et al. I was so sure that this was where Rowling was going that the King's Cross chapter, in which Dumbledore explains it all, made me feel like she must have changed the plot in a late revision. Of course, I'm not one to begrudge a plot twist, and the rest of the ending was simply amazing, though I would've thought Draco would have redeemed himself at some point.

I've read complaints online about the epilogue, but I thought this was a perfect way for Rowling to give herself as many options for the future as possible. The ending is final - there's no more that needs to be written about Harry. But, there's a possibility for more in the stories of Albus, James, Lilly and so forth. She can write as much or as little as she wants about these characters without ruining Harry's story, without a deadline of people breathlessly waiting out a cliffhanger and without making a even more complex book that stands on the shoulders of the ones before. In essence, Rowling gets a reset on the whole series. Brilliant!

Listener · **Reply #51 on:** July 27, 2007, 12:23:27 PM

Quote from: slic on July 26, 2007, 09:10:28 PM

Speaking of Neville's heroics, though, I was a bit confused about his getting the sword out of the Sorting Hat - was that planned, is that why he "threw" himself at Voldemort?

"Only a true Gryffindor could pull that out of the hat."

"Help will always come to those who ask for it."

Neville, by rejecting Voldemort and showing his bravery over the past few books, proved he was a true Gryffindor. And though we can't see into his head because the books are third-person-limited, who's to say he wasn't asking for help mentally?

ClintMemo · **Reply #52 on:** July 27, 2007, 12:25:33 PM

Quote from: slic on July 26, 2007, 09:10:28 PM

Speaking of Neville's heroics, though, I was a bit confused about his getting the sword out of the Sorting Hat - was that planned, is that why he "threw" himself at Voldemort?

That was the way I took it. Harry told him to kill the snake and the hat gave the sword in book 2, so there was a precedent, so to speak.

Listener · **Reply #53 on:** July 27, 2007, 12:30:45 PM

Quote from: sayeth on July 26, 2007, 09:41:52 PM

The ending was great. As soon as the Hallows were explained by Mr. Lovegood, I guessed this as the ending: Harry would face Voldemort in the final battle, and both would kill each other. Harry, having the cloak, having the stone open "at the close", and upon V's death, having the wand, would be returned to life by the convergence of the Deathly Hallows after a chapter full of mourning by Ginny, Ron, Hermione, et al. I was so sure that this was where Rowling was going that the King's Cross chapter, in which Dumbledore explains it all, made me feel like she must have changed the plot in a late revision. Of course, I'm not one to begrudge a plot twist, and the rest of the ending was simply amazing, though I would've thought Draco would have redeemed himself at some point.

I felt cheated by Chapter 35 ("Dumbledore Explains It All"). It's like Harry made this sacrifice so that someone else could kill Voldemort, and then the sacrifice was cheapened. In real life, a person who made a sacrifice like this would not come back to life, and though I know HP books are not reality, I felt she generally has made things believable. Plus, there was all that stuff in the past books about how no one can come back from the dead, as much as we want them to -- Mirror of Erised, Priori Incantatem, Harry's talk with Nick, and even the truth about the Resurrection Stone.

It did kind of mirror the end of HP1, though -- Harry didn't want to use the Sorcerer's Stone, so he was able to get it out of the mirror, and he didn't want to use the Hallows, so he used them for their "intended" purpose, which was to survive death.

I just... y'know... I wouldn't have been HAPPY had Harry died, but I think the ending would've been loads better if he'd remained a martyr instead of "coming back to life" (because he never really was dead).

Quote

I've read complaints online about the epilogue, but I thought this was a perfect way for Rowling to give herself as many options for the future as possible. The ending is final - there's no more that needs to be written about Harry. But, there's a possibility for more in the stories of Albus, James, Lilly and so forth. She can write as much or as little as she wants about these characters without ruining Harry's story, without a deadline of people breathlessly waiting out a cliffhanger and without making a even more complex book that stands on the shoulders of the ones before. In essence, Rowling gets a reset on the whole series. Brilliant!

I had no problems with the epilogue either. I've often espoused the opinion that, after she finished Book 7, she should allow other authors to pick up the franchise while she gets final approval on plots and stories and such, kind of like what Paramount has done with Star Trek. I could see great stories coming out of HP about the Marauders, the Dumbledore-Grindelwald stories, the rise of Fudge (immediately following the First Voldemort War), other Hogwarts students through the seven years of Potter, and what happened after the Second War.

Since Rowling has openly said she has no problem with fanfic, I know it's a pipe dream, but some fanfic is really amazingly-written. I'd love to see some of those authors tapped to rewrite their stories to fit in with canon and then sell them as HP books.

Heradel · **Reply #54 on:** July 27, 2007, 12:53:28 PM

Anyone else see the interview on Countdown (MSNBC) with JK? She said she may do an encyclopedia (I guess something a bit akin to the Silmarion) and said that the first draft the epilogue had a lot more plot details and didn't work. Some of the ones cut were that Harry and Ron apparently revolutionized the Auror department and Hermione became a magical DA. Summary of the details here.

Bdoomed · **Reply #55 on:** July 27, 2007, 08:26:19 PM

Quote from: Heradel on July 27, 2007, 12:53:28 PM

Anyone else see the interview on Countdown (MSNBC) with JK? She said she may do an encyclopedia (I guess something a bit akin to the Silmarion) and said that the first draft the epilogue had a lot more plot details and didn't work. Some of the ones cut were that Harry and Ron apparently revolutionized the Auror department and Hermione became a magical DA. Summary of the details here.

said that on the last page, but thanks for the link!

Zathras · **Reply #56 on:** July 30, 2007, 02:14:40 PM

Quote from: Listener on July 20, 2007, 08:07:30 PM

So watch out... people are being asshats and ruining it for everyone.

Speaking of Wizard Rock... Enjoy...

* don't laugh... oh, okay, laugh, go ahead

Yeah, some fartknockers were driving by a B & N bookstore in a Minneapolis suburb yelling spoilers out the windows at the Potter fans going in to the store at midnight they day it went on sale.

Alasdair5000 · **Reply #57 on:** July 30, 2007, 02:38:48 PM

Quote from: ClintMemo on July 26, 2007, 07:59:22 PM

Quote from: Listener on July 26, 2007, 06:43:01 PM

Yeah, when he took that dive off the bike, I totally expected him to bite it.

I didn't expect it until he went after the spiders. I figured that someone big (no pun intended) would die late.
Although...
I didn't expect Mad-eye to die so early. I was certain they were going to find him in Malfoy's castle or that he was going to come back as a zombie or something.
Hedwig's death was kind of glossed over, but it was totally necessary for the plot. Someone would have used it to find Harry.
I was a bit disappointed that Tonks and Lupin died off-screen. She could have at least had someone tell Harry how they died.

I was glad that Longbottom go to do something heroic. I was a bit surprised that he didn't get to kill LeStrange but I suppose everyone expected that so maybe that's why she didn't do it.

I did enjoy the epilogue - especially the bit where Draco nodded his head (or tipped his hat whatever). It really gave it that "the past is the past and everyone has gotten over it and moved on" vibe. Maybe Draco turned out not to be so bad after all. Maybe he just had bad parents.
Of course, it also sets the seed for "Hogwarts: The Next Generation." I'm sure people are already pestering her about doing that. Even if she never writes another Hogwarts story, I can't imagine that she would give up writing.

Agree with you on Mad Eye's death but the reveal of exactly what his eye was being used for was pretty much the most horrid thing I've ever read in a book aimed primarily at children:) Top marks to her for that one.
As for the Tonks/Lupin deaths off screen I actually rather liked that especially, oddly enough, as they were amongst my favourite supporting characters. There's some good symmetry with the first war and Harry being orphaned and there's an interesting sense of their story being just as rich, just as varied but just 'to the left' of the established text.

Russell Nash · **Reply #58 on:** July 31, 2007, 11:38:47 AM

Finally got the chance to finish it.

Overall I give it high marks.

Three points that come to mind right now:

1) I think the real stregnth of the whole series comes from the fact that it was all planned out before the first one was finished being written. So many epics just continue and continue (Wheel of Time anyone?) because they're making money. They lose their continuity and feel like the author is just making it up as they go along.

2) Since the story happens from Harry's point of view, it would feel cheap if he witnessed every important death, like Tonks and Lupin. It would end up being, "oh here comes Lupin and Tonks. I wonder which of them is going to die in front of Harry."

3) Hedwig dying the way she did was a quick way to bring in how serious the situation was. Rowling was going to let charactors die. Harry needed to know it and so did we. After she did that, I spent the whole book going, "Now it's Hagrid's turn. Oh, wait, now it's Ron's turn."

4) The epilogue felt right to me. Harry said he didn't want any more trouble. We get to see that's what he got. He got to bring up the family he always wanted to be a part of. He got what he saw in the mirror. Rowling also put a nail in Harry's story. There will probably be other stories in this universe, but you don't get to mess with Harry's story.

5) The hallows were needed as a way to get rid of Dumbledore. There was no need for 95% of HP7 if Dumbledore was still there. Harry needed to step up. With Dumbledore around he never would have done it.

OK, that was five, but that's what came to me.

eytanz · **Reply #59 on:** July 31, 2007, 11:45:32 AM

Quote from: Russell Nash on July 31, 2007, 11:38:47 AM

3) Hedwig dying the way she did was a quick way to bring in how serious the situation was. Rowling was going to let charactors die. Harry needed to know it and so did we. After she did that, I spent the whole book going, "Now it's Hagrid's turn. Oh, wait, now it's Ron's turn."

I agree with most of the rest of what you said, but I don't totally buy this - I think that after books 4-6, this wasn't really a point that much needed making. Besides, Hedwig's death is followed in quick succession with Moody's death, which on its own would have made the same point.

Not, mind you, that I'm arguing Hedwig should have been spared. I just found her death to be relatively awkwardly handled by Rowling.

Russell Nash · **Reply #60 on:** July 31, 2007, 12:29:32 PM

Quote from: eytanz on July 31, 2007, 11:45:32 AM

Quote from: Russell Nash on July 31, 2007, 11:38:47 AM
3) Hedwig dying the way she did was a quick way to bring in how serious the situation was. Rowling was going to let charactors die. Harry needed to know it and so did we. After she did that, I spent the whole book going, "Now it's Hagrid's turn. Oh, wait, now it's Ron's turn."

I agree with most of the rest of what you said, but I don't totally buy this - I think that after books 4-6, this wasn't really a point that much needed making. Besides, Hedwig's death is followed in quick succession with Moody's death, which on its own would have made the same point.

Not, mind you, that I'm arguing Hedwig should have been spared. I just found her death to be relatively awkwardly handled by Rowling.

I think Hedwig added suspense in the moment. I thought Hagrid was a goner when he hit. It helped make Moody's death off screen more acceptable and added tension to the wait for everyone to get to the Burrow.

ajames · **Reply #61 on:** August 01, 2007, 10:42:38 AM

Quote from: Listener on July 27, 2007, 12:23:27 PM

Quote from: slic on July 26, 2007, 09:10:28 PM
Speaking of Neville's heroics, though, I was a bit confused about his getting the sword out of the Sorting Hat - was that planned, is that why he "threw" himself at Voldemort?

"Only a true Gryffindor could pull that out of the hat."

"Help will always come to those who ask for it."

Neville, by rejecting Voldemort and showing his bravery over the past few books, proved he was a true Gryffindor. And though we can't see into his head because the books are third-person-limited, who's to say he wasn't asking for help mentally?

First off, loved the series and thought JKR did a wonderful job with this last book. Don't have much to add that hasn't already been said here but at the end this bit about the sword didn't quite sit with me too well. All that time spent figuring out how to get something to destroy the horcruxes, breaking into the bank, etc., when it could just be pulled out of a hat. All that discussion about goblins and wizards just sort of pushed aside. [Looks like their could be another novel, "Revenge of the Goblins"]. Yes it can all be explained, just not very satisfactorily to me.

But that is nitpicking, and if that is the only problem I have with a monumental undertaking such as this, then wow! Just wow! My hat is off to you, JK, [just not my sorting hat

].

DKT · **Reply #62 on:** August 01, 2007, 03:23:37 PM

I took the way Neville pulled Gryffindor's sword from the Sorting Hat to mean that it really was Gryffindor's sword, not the goblin. They made it and they sold/gave it to Godric Gryffindor and were no longer the rightful owners of it. And this is kind of proved by what Dumbledore told Harry back in book 2:

Only a true Gryffindor could pull that out of the hat."

"Help will always come to those who ask for it."

(^stolen from Listener)

One things for sure, Griphook must have been pissed off.

eytanz · **Reply #63 on:** August 01, 2007, 04:12:38 PM

Well, since the sorting hat was enchanted by Griffindor himself, and based on his values. it's more than likely that the goblins would not view it as granting legitimacy to the wizards' ownership of the sword - from the goblin POV, it is probably just a sneaky sword-stealing device.

I liked the goblin subplot - true, it was not resolved, but adding it added a layer of complexity to the morals of the story. Harry's actions, as well as Neville's, are clearly justified by the circumstances - but then again, take that reasoning too far and you get young Dumbledore's "To the greater good", or, for that matter's, older Dumbledore's manipulation of everyone around him for his aims. Te goblin subplot provides another perspective to look at the entire story.

Russell Nash · **Reply #64 on:** August 01, 2007, 05:36:51 PM

I just saw Neville going, "shit I can't move and there's this heavy metal thing giving me a fricking headache".

Then the hat says, "Take the sword and do what you need to do."

"Sword? What sword?"

"The one giving you the headache."

"Oh, that's a sword?"

"Yes, Take it."

"But I can't move."

"That's it. I'm taking my sword and going home."

"Wait, wait, I can move. Give me the sword."

DKT · **Reply #65 on:** August 01, 2007, 05:44:13 PM

Quote from: eytanz on August 01, 2007, 04:12:38 PM

Well, since the sorting hat was enchanted by Griffindor himself, and based on his values. it's more than likely that the goblins would not view it as granting legitimacy to the wizards' ownership of the sword - from the goblin POV, it is probably just a sneaky sword-stealing device.

I liked the goblin subplot - true, it was not resolved, but adding it added a layer of complexity to the morals of the story. Harry's actions, as well as Neville's, are clearly justified by the circumstances - but then again, take that reasoning too far and you get young Dumbledore's "To the greater good", or, for that matter's, older Dumbledore's manipulation of everyone around him for his aims. Te goblin subplot provides another perspective to look at the entire story.

Yeah, maybe I wasn't clear. I have no doubts from the goblin POV it seemed like some sneaky sword-stealing device. I'm just unconvinced by their perspective. But certainly Griphook was.

And I totally agree about the goblin subplot adding some murky complexity to the overall story. I'm glad it wasn't completely resolved.

Listener · **Reply #66 on:** August 01, 2007, 06:01:06 PM

http://nymag.com/daily/entertainment/2007/07/harry_potter_the_death_list.html

The full list of Obits from Book Seven, written amusingly.

Heradel · **Reply #67 on:** October 21, 2007, 04:29:25 AM

It's been going around the media that Dumbledore's gay, but it seems kind of weird that it's gotten as much attention as it has. I kinda guessed that he might be while I was reading the books, but it didn't enter the story because it really didn't matter to the story.

Does it change things for anyone else? Will it end up being just another reason the book ends up being banned?

Rachel Swirsky · **Reply #68 on:** October 21, 2007, 06:52:26 AM

http://www.amptoons.com/blog/archives/2007/10/20/hes-gay-and-hes-native-american-rowling-and-scalzi-claim-marginal-identities-for-charcters-after-the-fact/

Russell Nash · **Reply #69 on:** October 21, 2007, 09:28:04 AM

Quote from: Heradel on October 21, 2007, 04:29:25 AM

It's been going around the media that Dumbledore's gay, but it seems kind of weird that it's gotten as much attention as it has. I kinda guessed that he might be while I was reading the books, but it didn't enter the story because it really didn't matter to the story.

Does it change things for anyone else? Will it end up being just another reason the book ends up being banned?

It is entirely unimportant to the story, so who cares? All of the teachers live at the school without spouses. Do they have saturday night orgies on the dungeons? I don't care. The stories weren't about them.

I am sure however that some people will hit the roof about it and have a book burning. Then over the years they will almost all rebuy the books, so it's good for Rowling.

contra · **Reply #70 on:** October 21, 2007, 09:42:58 PM

On another forum I saw someone ask if that means what Snape did was a hate crime

I laughed...

Loz · **Reply #71 on:** October 22, 2007, 05:40:21 AM

It's not that Dumbledore was gay that I have any problem with, it's the fact that he's gay, falls in love with the wrong boy when he's young, then when it ends badly decides to shut down emotionally and live a life of self-denying celibacy, because teh gheyness made him do bad things! Gee thanks J.K., good role model for the kids there. What's more, multi-zillionaire Rowling doesn't do anything to reveal this in her books, instead making another of her pronouncements after anyone who was likely to be offended had bought the book.

Alasdair5000 · **Reply #72 on:** October 22, 2007, 08:34:00 AM

Or as a friend of mine put it: 'My God, the woman writes her own slash fic.'

Heradel · **Reply #73 on:** October 23, 2007, 07:41:10 PM

To offer a view from the other side I'll point to Neil Gaiman's journal, quoted below.

Quote from: Neil Gaiman

Neil --
In Ross Douthat's recent column in the Atlantic Monthly concerning the J.K. Rowling press of late (http://tinyurl.com/yq2wz2), Douthat suggests that "a writer confident in her powers wouldn't feel the need to announce details like this". It seems odd to me that ulterior motives are so quickly suspected -- she was an author answering a question with additional information not previously known. Do you find yourself withholding information during Q&A if it's not already contained in the story? Why or why not?

All that tells us is that Ross Douthat doesn't write fiction.

You always wind up knowing more about your characters than you can get onto the page. Pages are finite, and the story isn't about giving you all the information about everyone in it any more than life is. Things the author knows about characters (or at least, strongly suspects -- it's never really real until it hits the page, because the process of writing is also a process of discovery) that don't make it onto the page could include the characters' backstory, what they like to eat, the toothpaste they use, what happens to them after the story is over or before it began, and what they do in bed. That something didn't turn up in the books just means it didn't make it onto the page or wasn't relevant to the story. (Or even, it made it in and the author cut that scene out because it didn't work. One of my favourite scenes in Anansi Boys went because it made the chapter work better when it was gone.)

(I remember being astonished when I learned a few years ago, from an obituary, that two teachers I'd had as a child were a same-sex couple. Mostly astonished because at the age where they taught me, I didn't imagine that teachers had romantic lives, or were even entirely human; and learning that they were a pair reconfigured everything I knew about them, which wasn't very much.)

...

There's more, but that seems to be the pertinent section.

DKT · **Reply #74 on:** October 23, 2007, 08:19:51 PM

Quote from: Loz on October 22, 2007, 05:40:21 AM

It's not that Dumbledore was gay that I have any problem with, it's the fact that he's gay, falls in love with the wrong boy when he's young, then when it ends badly decides to shut down emotionally and live a life of self-denying celibacy, because teh gheyness made him do bad things! Gee thanks J.K., good role model for the kids there.

See, this kind of thing really confuses me because in my mind, it actually makes Dumbledore that much more of a flawed character.

Russell Nash · **Reply #75 on:** October 23, 2007, 08:34:01 PM

Quote from: DKT on October 23, 2007, 08:19:51 PM

Quote from: Loz on October 22, 2007, 05:40:21 AM
It's not that Dumbledore was gay that I have any problem with, it's the fact that he's gay, falls in love with the wrong boy when he's young, then when it ends badly decides to shut down emotionally and live a life of self-denying celibacy, because teh gheyness made him do bad things! Gee thanks J.K., good role model for the kids there.

See, this kind of thing really confuses me because in my mind, it actually makes Dumbledore that much more of a flawed character.

For all we know the wizard community is extremely bigoted. Dumbledore had to hind what he really was.

You know, now I'm starting to wonder what McGonigal really does on saturday nights.

DKT · **Reply #76 on:** October 23, 2007, 08:58:45 PM

Before she transformed herself into a cat, or after?

DDog · **Reply #77 on:** October 23, 2007, 10:39:14 PM

Coming in quite late to the discussion but I guess the whole DIG thing bumped the thread up.

The thing that pissed me off the most about the book was the epilogue. Everyone tied up neatly in heterosexual families? Seriously. She has plenty of time in the rest of the book to give us great heterosexual family role models. And the "if you don't mention it we throw in our cultural standard" idea from palimsest's article holds true here as well--I was hoping Neville was unmarried at least and not-straight at best, since he isn't mentioned on one side of an ampersand, but the same interview that reveals Dumbledore's sexuality reveals that Neville marries Hannah Abbot.

The thing about sexuality in fiction is that you can't get away from it and sometimes there is no right answer. If you make your characters have explicitly non-straight orientations, the story will become just about sexuality for many people even if that wasn't the point; if you leave it out or make them all heterosexual, people complain you're not painting an accurate picture of the world or avoiding the issue; if you leave it out to avoid track A and then tell everyone afterwards to avoid track B, "Dumbledore Is Gay" is the only thing people have to say about your novel anymore and they still gripe at you for not being more explicit in the story.

And orientation-, gender-, and race-blind LIFE doesn't happen. Unless you are in some alternate universe or futuristic setting or dealing with aliens, nobody goes through life without discussing sexuality, gender, and race at least some of the time, especially those of us who are not SWMs. The focus of a story has to be pretty narrow for me to believe that these topics don't come up ever.

Tango Alpha Delta · **Reply #78 on:** October 25, 2007, 11:36:09 AM

Quote from: DDog on October 23, 2007, 10:39:14 PM

The thing about sexuality in fiction is that you can't get away from it ... Unless you are in some alternate universe or futuristic setting or dealing with aliens, nobody goes through life without discussing sexuality, gender, and race at least some of the time...

I think Hogwarts qualifies as "some alternate universe".

And while I do NOT disagree with palimpsest's point (I've made that mistake before), I would suggest that the real sin involved in the "sin of omission" is not the artist/author's fault. If the readers are projecting "white man" onto any character not specifically described otherwise, that's really their own laziness at work. Yeah, the writer needs to find interesting ways of slipping description and exposition into the tale, but you can only expect so much, and we wouldn't want them to waste all our time with extraneous detail.

As for Dumbledore's "gheyness", I think Rowling told us as much as she needed to: He's 1) British, 2) single, 3) gentle, and a 4) schoolteacher, 5) who talks about love. I know a lot of folks who would conclude from that that he was gay.* Short of some pointless and awkward exposition ("Then Dumbledore, who was clearly quite gay, pulled another memory from his bonce and plopped it into the pensieve") or worse, dialogue ("Help will always be here for you Harry; and I'm a very withdrawn, non-practising homosexual.") I don't know how you could expect her to telegraph her intention without distracting from the rest of the story.

Of course, she could have set up Voldemort's motivation as that of a jilted lover. How much sharper than a serpent's tooth is the fury of a Slytherin scorned? And Neville could have ended up with Dean Thomas, but then we wouldn't be set up so thoroughly for a sequel series, now would we?

*And, no, I don't approve of or choose to hang out with these folks -- they've also concluded that I'm gay because I prefer opera to football, and that my wife and four kids are a smoke screen. I doubt many of them can read, anyway.

Loz · **Reply #79 on:** October 26, 2007, 05:50:04 AM

I always enjoy it when people go to absurd lengths to try and defend their position. I had another conversation elsewhere where someone seemed to think that asking how Rowling could have worked Dumbledore wearing leather chaps into the story as a signifier of his sexuality.

It is Rowling's responsibility to find a way to work it in to the story (I don't see anything wrong with Dumbledore being a bit more specific during his conversation with Harry in Deathly Hallows for example). After all, if Rowling hadn't been asked this question at this time we might never have known about Dumbledore. After all, we're not all slash writers, it's not our job to assume that all the boys are sleeping together and all the girls are sneaking off to orgies in the Ravenclaw Tower

Listener · **Reply #80 on:** October 26, 2007, 05:58:29 PM

Quote from: Tango Alpha Delta on October 25, 2007, 11:36:09 AM

Of course, she could have set up Voldemort's motivation as that of a jilted lover. How much sharper than a serpent's tooth is the fury of a Slytherin scorned? And Neville could have ended up with Dean Thomas, but then we wouldn't be set up so thoroughly for a sequel series, now would we?

Actually, fanfic is more likely to pair up Seamus with Dean Thomas.

Don't ask me how I know that or I'll be forced to point you to my author page on adultfanfiction.net.

I'm with the people who call the DIG thing a bit of retconning combined with JKR wanting to stay relevant.

Ever since her editors became too scared to edit down her doorstops (leading to bloatedness in books 4, 5, 6, and 7), despite her kindly-mom outward persona, I think it all went to her head. I really hope that when she starts her next book series, whatever it ends up being, her editors do not fear her. Maybe they should hire whoever edited the latest Anita Blake novel -- the three before it were bloated and choppy and annoying, but The Harlequin was tighter and sharper, even though it was still long.

Tango Alpha Delta · **Reply #81 on:** October 27, 2007, 01:26:41 PM

Quote from: Loz on October 26, 2007, 05:50:04 AM

I always enjoy it when people go to absurd lengths to try and defend their position. I had another conversation elsewhere where someone seemed to think that asking how Rowling could have worked Dumbledore wearing leather chaps into the story as a signifier of his sexuality.

It is Rowling's responsibility to find a way to work it in to the story (I don't see anything wrong with Dumbledore being a bit more specific during his conversation with Harry in Deathly Hallows for example). After all, if Rowling hadn't been asked this question at this time we might never have known about Dumbledore. After all, we're not all slash writers, it's not our job to assume that all the boys are sleeping together and all the girls are sneaking off to orgies in the Ravenclaw Tower

...and I enjoy going to absurd lengths for a cheap laugh. What a match!

I guess the point I am reaching for is this: she shouldn't HAVE to work that detail into the story. Not every detail is crucial, and you would need a compelling reason to tell readers that particular detail. She had to decide what was important to tell IN THE BOOK, and what wasn't; the fact that she had that in mind is interesting, but not crucial.

Dumbledore's alleged orientation doesn't matter enough to the story to be worth spelling out to the reader. Nothing in the story requires him to be a particular orientation, and trying to shoehorn that into the narrative would either be an exercise in awkwardness or offensiveness. No matter how casually she presented it, there would be readers with extreme opinions on the topic who would be distracted from the main point she wanted to make (about Love being the most powerful magic).

Making a character gay in our society is a huge investment. It means that you have to develop that idea; if you plant the notion, you're going to provoke your readers to come up with ridiculous and offensive assumptions about what it means to be gay (like the ones I made, and the leather chaps comment). You have to worry about two prongs of reaction: the anti-gays who will be mad that the character is gay at all, and the pro-gays who won't be satisfied with any perceived mischaracterization of the lifestyle. Frankly, I'm glad she didn't try to deal with it, because I don't think she would have handled it well under any circumstances. Maybe a better writer could, but looking at how she handled the scenes of young teenage love, I'm relieved she didn't try to tackle homosexuality.

For me, it comes down to this: I read the books. I hear this interview where the author says "DIG"... I reconsider the books with that detail thrown in, and ask myself, does it change anything? No; D is still a good, noble, and flawed character. Is it sad that more people on our planet can't recognize that and stop worrying so much about whether someone is gay? Yes.

Now, I'm sure I've left holes in my argument... but someone just started crying downstairs, so no time to edit further. Be merciful!

DDog · **Reply #82 on:** January 08, 2008, 10:14:04 PM

I can't remember whether this has been said already, and I'm sorry for the zombie topic, but I just thought of this point earlier today. There was some debate about whether it would have been appropriate for Dumbledore (or any other character, for that matter) to be openly gay during the story--and it struck me that people die in Harry Potter. And they die in some pretty gruesome ways. Is a friend or relative or teacher being gay really a more traumatic topic for children than the violent deaths of friends, relatives, and teachers?

Russell Nash · **Reply #83 on:** January 09, 2008, 10:23:28 PM

Quote from: DDog on January 08, 2008, 10:14:04 PM

I can't remember whether this has been said already, and I'm sorry for the zombie topic, but I just thought of this point earlier today. There was some debate about whether it would have been appropriate for Dumbledore (or any other character, for that matter) to be openly gay during the story--and it struck me that people die in Harry Potter. And they die in some pretty gruesome ways. Is a friend or relative or teacher being gay really a more traumatic topic for children than the violent deaths of friends, relatives, and teachers?

The thing is that the deaths were directly relavent to the plot. A charactor being gay could only distract. There would be people screaming about the immorality of it and people screaming she just did it for the publicity.

DKT · **Reply #84 on:** January 09, 2008, 11:00:28 PM

Quote from: Russell Nash on January 09, 2008, 10:23:28 PM

Quote from: DDog on January 08, 2008, 10:14:04 PM
I can't remember whether this has been said already, and I'm sorry for the zombie topic, but I just thought of this point earlier today. There was some debate about whether it would have been appropriate for Dumbledore (or any other character, for that matter) to be openly gay during the story--and it struck me that people die in Harry Potter. And they die in some pretty gruesome ways. Is a friend or relative or teacher being gay really a more traumatic topic for children than the violent deaths of friends, relatives, and teachers?

The thing is that the deaths were directly relavent to the plot. A charactor being gay could only distract. There would be people screaming about the immorality of it and people screaming she just did it for the publicity.

I think the important word here is "appropriate." Personally, I don't think it has anything to do with appropriateness. Like Russell said, the deaths mentioned drove the plot. Dumbledore "coming out" in the story, regardless of how people would've reacted to it, would've felt pretty forced the way the stories are written. I like what one of the other posters said (TAD, I think) -- when would Dumbledore reveal this bit of information to Harry? In one of his private lessons? But as a bit of backstory that was never published, it works very well for me.

(I'm also not convinced that appropriateness had anything to do with Rowling not being more up front about it in the actual books. The woman was already getting her books burned because she was writing about witchcraft. I don't think she really cared that much about reactionists.)

DDog · **Reply #85 on:** January 10, 2008, 04:06:09 AM

I understand that having actual gay characters is a sideline to Rowling's plot and messages (she chooses instead to couch a message of acceptance or tolerance in terms of pureblood vs other, which is perfectly reasonable). My reasoning was less of a blanket argument for Dumbledore being out in book-timeline, and more of a response to counter-arguments that aren't story-driven but involve the "appropriateness" of children being exposed to the topic of homosexuality.

Tango Alpha Delta · **Reply #86 on:** January 10, 2008, 04:08:01 AM

Quote from: DDog on January 08, 2008, 10:14:04 PM

Is a friend or relative or teacher being gay really a more traumatic topic for children than the violent deaths of friends, relatives, and teachers?

No, but it is more traumatic for the adults who think they are protecting children by freaking out about such things.

Actual kid reactions to such news would likely range from "So?" or "What does that mean?" to "Ew!" or maybe "My God, what a relief to find out that I'm not the only one in the world who feels that way, and that it isn't the horrible secret that I thought it was because of the way my parents talk about it."

I've noticed, speaking as a child with many years of experience, that adults seem to have arbitrarily decided that it's good to de-sensitize us to violence in order to "toughen us up" for our own protection in the big bad world, but generally keep us utterly in the dark about anything that has to do with our "naughty bits"... in order to protect us. Having just served on the jury in a molestation case, I'd like to tell you all that kind of thinking doesn't protect children; it makes them more vulnerable.

If it was just a matter of being okay with me and my family, I'd just say, "Sure, Dumbledore can be gay," and view it as an opportunity to introduce the topic to my kids. (And for full disclosure, yes, we have had other opportunities to talk about it with the eldest; we explained what homosexuality means in neutral terms, told her how strongly some people feel about it, and that she could always talk to us about it because we don't feel strongly either way.)

But my failure of imagination in this case has more to do with my own high threshhold of "how do you justify the hate-filled backlash from outing Dumbledore"? I can't see a scenario where confirming his orientation would be worth the brouhaha about it.

DKT · **Reply #87 on:** January 10, 2008, 05:04:22 AM

Quote from: DDog on January 10, 2008, 04:06:09 AM

I understand that having actual gay characters is a sideline to Rowling's plot and messages (she chooses instead to couch a message of acceptance or tolerance in terms of pureblood vs other, which is perfectly reasonable). My reasoning was less of a blanket argument for Dumbledore being out in book-timeline, and more of a response to counter-arguments that aren't story-driven but involve the "appropriateness" of children being exposed to the topic of homosexuality.

Ah. So your argument is against people (as in say, parents of readers) who are complaining against the appropriateness of Dumbledore's sexuality despite the rising bodycount? I must've misread that somehow. Carry on, then. No argument here.

Russell Nash · **Reply #88 on:** January 10, 2008, 09:29:27 AM

Quote from: DKT on January 10, 2008, 05:04:22 AM

Quote from: DDog on January 10, 2008, 04:06:09 AM
I understand that having actual gay characters is a sideline to Rowling's plot and messages (she chooses instead to couch a message of acceptance or tolerance in terms of pureblood vs other, which is perfectly reasonable). My reasoning was less of a blanket argument for Dumbledore being out in book-timeline, and more of a response to counter-arguments that aren't story-driven but involve the "appropriateness" of children being exposed to the topic of homosexuality.

Ah. So your argument is against people (as in say, parents of readers) who are complaining against the appropriateness of Dumbledore's sexuality despite the rising bodycount? I must've misread that somehow. Carry on, then. No argument here.

Then I also was in full agreement. My response to Dumbledore being gay was just, "I can see it."

Loz · **Reply #89 on:** January 13, 2008, 06:30:42 PM

Quote from: Russell Nash on January 09, 2008, 10:23:28 PM

Quote from: DDog on January 08, 2008, 10:14:04 PM
I can't remember whether this has been said already, and I'm sorry for the zombie topic, but I just thought of this point earlier today. There was some debate about whether it would have been appropriate for Dumbledore (or any other character, for that matter) to be openly gay during the story--and it struck me that people die in Harry Potter. And they die in some pretty gruesome ways. Is a friend or relative or teacher being gay really a more traumatic topic for children than the violent deaths of friends, relatives, and teachers?

The thing is that the deaths were directly relavent to the plot. A charactor being gay could only distract. There would be people screaming about the immorality of it and people screaming she just did it for the publicity.

Erm, but Dumbledore WAS gay and fancied Grindelwald, so your argument doesn't really work.

eytanz · **Reply #90 on:** January 13, 2008, 06:52:37 PM

Quote from: Loz on January 13, 2008, 06:30:42 PM

Quote from: Russell Nash on January 09, 2008, 10:23:28 PM
Quote from: DDog on January 08, 2008, 10:14:04 PM
I can't remember whether this has been said already, and I'm sorry for the zombie topic, but I just thought of this point earlier today. There was some debate about whether it would have been appropriate for Dumbledore (or any other character, for that matter) to be openly gay during the story--and it struck me that people die in Harry Potter. And they die in some pretty gruesome ways. Is a friend or relative or teacher being gay really a more traumatic topic for children than the violent deaths of friends, relatives, and teachers?

The thing is that the deaths were directly relavent to the plot. A charactor being gay could only distract. There would be people screaming about the immorality of it and people screaming she just did it for the publicity.

Erm, but Dumbledore WAS gay and fancied Grindelwald, so your argument doesn't really work.

But the story is just as strong without knowing that Dumbledore was gay (I didn't realize that when I first read the book, though I don't find it at all incongruous). The story would be impossible if all the deaths were removed (note that for some specific deaths, it can be argued that they could or should have been removed. But violent death as a theme is integral to HP in a way that sexuality is not).

Tango Alpha Delta · **Reply #91 on:** January 13, 2008, 07:24:35 PM

Quote from: Loz on January 13, 2008, 06:30:42 PM

Erm, but Dumbledore WAS gay and fancied Grindelwald, so your argument doesn't really work.

Good point; if the author says it is so, then it is so, regardless of any specific "outing" in the text. All of my arguing revolves around whether or not it should be revealed, and the reaction of the audience... if he simply IS, and the text stands in that light, then I have nothing to say. (Except maybe "please don't over-react" directed at those who will inevitably be upset.)

Good thing we aren't deciding the fate of the world here, eh, folks?

Russell Nash · **Reply #92 on:** January 13, 2008, 07:58:57 PM

Quote from: Loz on January 13, 2008, 06:30:42 PM

Quote from: Russell Nash on January 09, 2008, 10:23:28 PM
The thing is that the deaths were directly relavent to the plot. A charactor being gay could only distract. There would be people screaming about the immorality of it and people screaming she just did it for the publicity.
Erm, but Dumbledore WAS gay and fancied Grindelwald, so your argument doesn't really work.

My point was that as part of the back story it didn't matter. If JKR says he's gay or says he just bonded with the bad boy, it doesn't change the book at all. Therefore she doesn't say it, because it would just distract from the story itself.

Honestly, how would you have reacted? How would it have changed how you read the book?

Loz · **Reply #93 on:** January 27, 2008, 11:08:12 AM

Quote from: Tango Alpha Delta on January 13, 2008, 07:24:35 PM

Good thing we aren't deciding the fate of the world here, eh, folks?

I say we nuke the place from orbit, it's the only way to be sure.

Tango Alpha Delta · **Reply #94 on:** January 27, 2008, 02:37:29 PM

Quote from: Loz on January 27, 2008, 11:08:12 AM

Quote from: Tango Alpha Delta on January 13, 2008, 07:24:35 PM
Good thing we aren't deciding the fate of the world here, eh, folks?

I say we nuke the place from orbit, it's the only way to be sure.

LOL!* Good thing YOU aren't deciding the fate of the world here, eh, folks?

*I rarely "LOL" so when I do, you know you provoked a real, honest-to-goodness guffaw.

Author Topic: Harry Potter 7 :: WARNING!!! :: SPOILERS INSIDE!!! :: (Read 36626 times)

Russell Nash

Russell Nash

Russell Nash

Zathras

Russell Nash

Russell Nash

Russell Nash

Russell Nash