PeterDavid.net

Having seen him (in every sense of the word) in Equus, I got a laugh out that bit (and the early bit with the 7 Harrys). Of course my wife and I were also making those sorts of jokes during the Thestral scenes in the movie.

David

I am on my third read-through of this book and I am still trying to put it all together - there was so much going on - but I really liked it and was very pleased with the entire book. All those little things, like the gleam Harry thought he saw in Dumbledore's eye when Voldemort took his blood at the end of GoF, the locket, Kreacher, RAB, Aunt Petunia - I could go on for pages about all the loose ends that were tied up - I was very impressed.

But I still want to know what Dudley saw when the Dementors were attacking them. Aside from that, I was satisfied.

I, for one, didn't think the writing was particularly good--certainly not as good as some of the previous HP books. You're right, though, Peter, that it contained a lot of exposition, and that's tough.

The best thing I can say for the book, and this is major, is that Ms. Rowling really succeeded on an emotional level. If I hadn't been finishing the book at five on Saturday morning, with my 3-year-old asleep in the next room, I would have stood up and cheered. Emotional success is huge--look at the disappointment so many felt at The Dark Tower's ending. (Not everyone, but many, by King's own admission.)

I really enjoyed the book, especially the second half.

Eric

"Jocelyn at July 24, 2007 10:06 PM"

The diet sheet from the School Nurse at Dudley's school and the realisation that it didn't include deep-fried battered Mars Bars. :-)

I was happy with the book and how it wrapped up the series. Some of the outcomes were what I had expected.

Megan (on the scond reading).

I liked the book--a lot. Probably more so than any of the others. I loved how everything came around and little things that I vaguely remember fit in like a huge puzzle.

I was, and still am, however, sorely disappointed in the epiologue. I felt it wasn't needed and it ruined the post-wonder of this huge "fairy tale". I felt it came across silly and tacked on. The last sentence of the real story was a perfect ending...we already knew enough to fill in the blanks of the love stories.

It felt like a forced addition rather than the "real" future of our heroes.

Perhaps it's just me?

One thing that I like and dislike about the epilogue is that shows very, very concretely that these characters live as happily ever after as anyone possibly could. I especially like it for kids, because there was a great deal of doubt and paranoia built up over the course of the series, and the epilogue makes it abundantly clear that everything is as hunky-dorey as can be even nineteen years later. I'm not sure that many of us are used to such a lack of ambiguity from our stories anymore, and I'm not sure what I really think of that.

But it's not just you, Czar.

Eric

I was quite surprised to see many of my own predictions came true. Even Better: There was even more to the story that I imaged.

With regards to the epilogue. Back in the previous thread I had mentioned that I had been spoiled on the last page and i hated it. After reading the book i kinda liked it. I liked it better on the second read through and I'm glad it's there.

The story is she wrote the epilogue years ago. (I guess because she felt it may be too hard to do at the end of everything.) So that's one of the reasons why it feels so different from everything else.

But I also liked the fact that it was so far ahead, she left spaces for a lot of things to happen.

the Trio and ginny didn't start having kids until about 6 or 7 years after they graduated, so there was plenty of time for them to go out and have well not adventures but certainly have a life did he become an auror, did he play quidditch professionally? Still up the air a little for people to decide. I think she did it that way people knew long term they were together.

The other thing according to an article about the upcoming today interview is that JK is going to a Harry potter encyclopedia which is going to fill in some backstory on other characters like Dean Thomas and cover some of the intervening years.

Is she the best writer in the world? no. But you have to give her credit for what she's done.

She made reading into a group experience, you had thousands of people reading the same book at the same time.

The sheer amount of effort she put into these books creating a world so immersive that it's captured the minds of millions.

No wonder the Doctor was so impressed.

i don't know if we'll ever see a series like this again.

I hope so but i hope not as well.

I agree wholeheartedly with PAD--J.K. Rowling pulled off a hell of a feat. I've been an avid reader for awhile now, and I can safely say that getting a book that manages to tie up most loose ends (if not all), and deliver a satisfying climax is, unfortunately, rare. But she did it.

Voldemort's coup of the Ministry was a masterstroke, I thought. It really established Voldemort as a threat, which books 5 and 6 didn't really accomplish, in my opinion. Not only that, Rowling included another mystery in the book, along with the location of Voldemort's Horcruxes, which I seriously did not expect. I was so focused on where the Horcruxes were that the reveal of the Deathly Hallows blindsided me. And yet, the clues were indeed there.

Of course, some clues should have been given in earlier books. We should have known the Snitch had flesh memory way back in book one, not to mention just how good Harry's cloak was. It's only now that we find that something may be special about it.

However, those are pretty minor quibbles, all things considered. Even if J.K. Rowling doesn't write another thing after this, I think she's proven herself remarkably well.

A few quick comments:

1. When Hedwig bought it, besides catching me totally by surprise and causing me to exclaim "Motherfucker!", it let me know right off the bat that the bodies were going to stack up like cordwood.

2. Interesting bits of revelation of who "that awful boy" Aunt Petunia referred to and what precisely was Snape's worst memory.

3. Where was Susan Bones? She had family killed the first time Voldy was around and lost her Gran this go round. Why isn't she there during the last battle?

4. Molly Weasley's Ellen Ripley moment.

5. I really wish the epilogue had a scene where the Ministry of Magic went all Nuremberg on Umbridge's ass.

6. A surprising amount of very poignant moments including Luna's ceiling, Dobby's final fate, Snape's last request, and Albus Severus sharing his middle name with "the bravest man I have ever known."

7. Xenophillius --> "Lover of Strange Things". Perfect name!

8. The movie will have to be at least three hours long.

9. One bit that really should have been there:
When Harry enters the headmaster's room and all the portraits applaud, a new frame next to Dumbledore featuring Severus Snape, clapping politely.

Speaking of Luna, we saw "The Order of The Phoenix" on Saturday night. Is it me or have they cast that role perfectly? The lass playing Luna really portrayed the (extra) otherworldly qualities that Rowlings gave the character - well for my money anyway.

Megan

I agree with many of you. I enjoyed the book and the wrap up. I had to read a couple of the chapters twice to make sure I caught everything. The main thing I did not like was it seemed like there was a lot of wasted time wandering around. I realize that is part of the story, but it seemed to take forever. I felt like the stories really got to you, I admit to shedding a tear when Fred (or was it George, who can tell?) died. And Percy coming back for that matter. Loved the Mrs. Weasley moment! I jumped up yelling, my wife thought I was losing my mind. I'm going to have to read it again and reread the sixth book, now that I know more about Snape and Dumbledore. Turns the scene on the top of the tower in book 6 on it's ear!

Speaking of Luna, we saw "The Order of The Phoenix" on Saturday night. Is it me or have they cast that role perfectly? The lass playing Luna really portrayed the (extra) otherworldly qualities that Rowlings gave the character - well for my money anyway.

The producers apparently gave the casting gods proper sacrifices.

PAD, any chance of an ORDER OF THE PHOENIX discussion page?

BTW, anyone catch the opening to Monday's COLBERT REPORT? Perfect.

My main problem with the epilogue was that it seemed like the only things worth mentioning of the next 19 years were who married whom and what kids they had. The only career path we get to see is Neville's, the only non-spawning accomplishment we get from the Big Three is that Ron got his driver's license (and it's also implied Harry has his, since Ron asks if Harry had trouble parking).

Personally, I thought the book was great! I loved it.

It was, imo, a great end to the series!

As for the epilogue, personally I liked it a lot. I was thinking that Deathly Hallows was going to have a bad ending (it really seemed like Harry was going to die) and was very happy to see that the series ended on a happy note. Sure people died, but the main three are safe! Not what I expected at all and I'm VERY happy with that.

I'm so tired of books & movies that have depressing/sad/terrible endings. There's too much of that now. Everybody thinks they have to go with the 'realistic' ending and kill off the main guy or do something else sad or just not end the thing at all (Halo 2/Cell/Angel. UGH) and leave everything to the readers imagination! Ugh.

Now sure, Rowling does leave some things to our imagination with the eplilogue, she doesn't tell us everything, but I'm OK with that. I'm just glad she did the epilogue. She could have ended it with Harry & the kids winning & Harry getting his wand back. I know I would have been disappointed with that though. I really wanted that epilogue! :)

Deathly Hallows is definitly my favorite of the Harry Potter books! Loved it. Especially everything at Hogwarts!

This is going to make one heck of a movie!

DF2506
" Is glad some book/movie series is going to have a happy ending for once."

I thought it was cute that A.S.P. was afraid he'd be Slytherin.

I've been reading HP reviews and one thing I keep noticing is people complaining about the epilogue.

So many people get stuck on the shipping, which to me is incidental where HP is concerned, or the naming of the kids, which well... they're wizards, all wizards suck at naming their kids, just look at all the rest of the names in the book for crying out loud.

But all those people nagging and nagging and nagging about the sentimentality and stuff seem to be people who haven't even bothered to read the epilogue, because it is essential.

In the first book, Hagrid almost instantly fills Harry with prejudices against Slytherin. It's in big part because of what Hagrid tells him about Slytherin that Harry ends up in Gryffindor. (and don't tell me Dumbledore didn't have a clue that this would happen, because I'm pretty sure he knows Hagrid well enough to know his opinion on matters)

Yet in that last scene, we see a moment where Harry could have filled his sons head with the same petty prejudices that he went in with, and he doesn't. We're shown that Harry has grown, has matured, has become a more forgiving man who can see beyond labels and look at people and see them for themselves.

He can in full honesty tell his son, "Then Slytherin house will have gained an excellent student, won't it? It doesn't matter to us Al."

Read those words "it doesn't matter", compared to Ron's joking to Rose, compared to Hagrid's words to Harry...

Harry releases his son from the chains of fear and dividedness. He tells his son about Snape, the man his son was named after and gives him a glimpse of understanding of Slytherin.
And I love Rowlings for doing that, for giving us an adult Harry who has truly come full circle and has become a man to be proud of.

Who cares that Harry ended up marrying Ginny, that Ron married Hermione, that's almost incidental in nature. It doesn't matter. It's just a small setting, like the trainstation. It's not the point of the epilogue, which is why we get no more than a glimpse of it.

What matters is that Harry has become an adult.

And that is why I love the epilogue, no matter how schmoopy or sentimental it may be.

It makes sense to hear that Rowling wrote the ending a long time ago...it felt like it. But I wish she realized she had become a better writer and decided to rewrite it. Not necessarily changing the ending, but improving the telling, adding a few more details on those 19 years.

I just realized ASP's initials due to the above commenter. I hope Rowling intended that, because it's great!

I didn't think of Equus-metafictionally in the scene PAD mentions, but in that, and a few other scenes, I wondered how exactly they were going to film it. For example - 7 Harrys - since they all are wearing their original clothing when they turn into Harry, and then change clothes, there could be some interesting totally-in-the-British-tradition cross-dressing.

I was a little surprised by some of the language in the book. 'Merlin's sagging left', and 'effing' caught me off-guard. Sure, 17-year old characters, but there are still 10 year old readers.

I think the biggest hint that the invisibility cloak was something special is that no one else had one.

Wow, Lore, that's a great analysis! Very well put.

The only negative thing to come out of all this are the douchbags who have been planting spoilers all over the place--some even used magaphones to yell out plotpoints to people waiting in line. You have to wonder at the mindset of someone who would get pleasure from that.

It might have been fun if, in the epilogue, one of the other families bidding their child goodbye...had been Dudley and his missus! Just an idea that makes me chuckle.

Other than that, I enjoyed HP7 a great deal, and I'll be rereading it again soon. (I got started on another multipart saga while waiting for HP7 to arrive, so I want to get that out of the way to clear the mental space for a nice, leisurely re-read...)

I enjoyed the book immensely, although because of the inordinate amount of time spent on the 3 wandering around and scratching their heads in the first 1/3, I don't think it will go down as my favorite. The only point that bothered me, and I don't think she wrapped it up tight enough, was that of Ted Lupin. Harry, as an orphan whose Godfather meant so much to him although he knew him too briefly, is suddenly the godfather of a small baby who is now an orphan like himself. Then, when Dumbledore gives him the choice of life or death he doesn't even seem to consider it at all in his decision. I expected Harry to see himself a lot more in the baby.

I realize this would probably have added another 100 poages to the book, but I would have liked even 2 lines to bring mention of it between the last chapter and the epilogue. (Who raises the baby? Tonk's widowed mother? Harry? Butt-kicking Mrs. Weasley? Did he have any of his father's werewolf charactistics?).

I know, I know, it's a kid's book. Like I won't read it at least 5 times.

There was one contradiction in the book tho ... maybe some of you on the second read through can help me ... but didn't she say in this book that the Invisibility Cloak that Harry had was absolutely impenetrable? That no one could see him if he was wearing it? And didn't Moody's Mad Eye see him across a crowded pub while he was wearing it in HP&POA? And wasn't it implied that Dumbledore detected them at Hagrid's in HP&COS when he was being sacked by Fudge and Malfoy?

I was mostly bored through the book until he got back to Hogwarts, then the action kicked in. He spent months on the run, trying to figure out what to do ... I spent 8 hours reading it, and I knew what he had to do. He had to go find a painting of Dumbledore and talk to it! It appeared that the paintings carried the personalities and memories of the subject. I was surprised at the end of last book he didn't go over to the painting in the Headmaster's office and say "Wake up! What's the game plan, coach?"

The epilogue would have been much better with other tidbits in it ... who raised Lupin's son? (Again, I might have missed that point in first read.) How high up did Arthur Weasley get in the Ministry after his heroism, and how was the Ministry restructured? Did they go Nuremburg on Umbridge's ass? How did Malfoy's parents pay for their crimes, and how heartfelt was their remorse? What happened to Luna? What job did Harry take? Was there a painting of Snape now, and did Harry apologize to it for his misgivings? Did Azkaban get shut down ... it sounds more inhumane that Abu Gahrib.

I was, and still am, however, sorely disappointed in the epiologue. I felt it wasn't needed and it ruined the post-wonder of this huge "fairy tale". I felt it came across silly and tacked on. The last sentence of the real story was a perfect ending...we already knew enough to fill in the blanks of the love stories.

It felt like a forced addition rather than the "real" future of our heroes.

Perhaps it's just me?

Personally, I think that ending may lead to a future series for Rowling: The Heirs of Potter.

I thought it was fairly obvious about Teddy: he's been raised by his grandmother, just like Neville's grandmother raised him.

Syd, I would have loved to have seen Dudley and his wife at the end. I was telling my husband that I wondered how Vernon and Petunia would react if a grandchild or -children turned out to be magically gifted. I'll bet doting mommy/granny Petunia would forget all those silly prejudices the moment she saw "Dudder's baby boy," especially seeing how badly young Petunia wanted to go to Hogwarts herself.

I was reminded of THE LION KING, etc. at the end. The circle is now complete and it's all about the children going off to school again to discover the wide wizarding world in front of them.

Linda

I liked it overall. I agree it dragged during the "camping stuff," but maybe that was Rowling's way of helping the readers empathize with the characters' frustration. :-) Also would have liked to see Harry et al. actually graduating from Hogwarts. (Maybe do a "one year later" epilogue in addition to the 19 years later one?) Other than that, no complaints and a lot of enjoyment.

My only real complaint about the book (other than that too many of the deaths happened off-screen, decreasing their emotional resonance for me) is that we never got to see Umbrage meet a horrible and painful end. Honestly, the only character I can think of in literature who I hate more than Umbrage is Hugh of Austra from Kate Elliot's "Crown of Stars" series, and I was pretty disappointed by the fact that we didn't get a nice, 15 page chapter detailing his demise too.

I loved the epilogue--more than that, I think I needed it. Not to go into personal circumstances, but there was a recent death in our family, and I think the frame of mind I was in when I read it made me want the happiest ending possible. Sentimentality it may be, but I wanted to know that everyone grew up, got married, had kids of their own, and lived Happily Ever After.

For that reason as well, the only thing I was disappointed in was the deaths of Tonks and Lupin. It felt very much like their deaths were a case of, "Well, I've had X number of people die, and that really isn't enough to give the whole thing enough impact, I should kill a couple more people too. Hmmm...Tonks and Lupin?" :)

AJ Sherman wrote:
There was one contradiction in the book tho ... maybe some of you on the second read through can help me ... but didn't she say in this book that the Invisibility Cloak that Harry had was absolutely impenetrable? That no one could see him if he was wearing it? And didn't Moody's Mad Eye see him across a crowded pub while he was wearing it in HP&POA? And wasn't it implied that Dumbledore detected them at Hagrid's in HP&COS when he was being sacked by Fudge and Malfoy?

"Invisible" does not mean "immune to detection." We've already seen in book 7 that there are spells to simply reveal human presence in a house, visible or invisible. Hermione herself points out that they'll leave tracks in the snow. Both Moody and Dumbledore had reasons to be very, very alert, and there were any number of signs that might have shown themselves to men such as those. To the kids, especially, who might be overconfident in the power of invisibility alone, such detection might seem like magic, but it might be simple observation.

Eric

I thought it was perfect. And well-written, too; I'm always extremely annoyed by people who claim that Rowling's prose is bad. I think it mostly has to do with the success of the book - some people just can't accept that something can be good as well as successful.

As for the epilogue, I think it was extremely satisfying. Soppy? Not in the least. Yes, they're happy, but they've paid for that happiness with blood. People *died* to create this future.

A worthy end to a wonderful series. I'm happy. All is well.

Hmmmm. Except for the 100 pages focusing on the travels of Harry, Hermione and (sometimes) Ron, I really enjoyed this last novel in the series. The final two hundred pages were a blast to read and I really like that almost all of the minor characters got a chance to take one last bow.

For those who have not seen the Rowling interview with Viera:

She basically announced that at some point she plans to do a 'PotterPedia' that, while not a novel, will fill in a number of the details that people have been seeking, especially regarding the epilogue (my personal theory is that the Epilogue was deliberately left vague to encourage discussion). No time frame was given, at least in what I heard.

Once she's had a chance to calm down after 17 years of work on this, I would not be surprised to see a short story here and there, perhaps in charity compilations, etc.

I may be the only person in the world who didn't think the book dragged in the middle. In fact, I found that the fleeing and hiding by Harry, Hermione and Ron to be incredibly tense.

That part reminded me a lot of the books and movies I've seen that relate how the jews fled and hid from the Nazi's in WW2. The idea that no matter where you hid or went one slip up could cost you your life.

How could that be considered dragging? Sure, the battle of Hogwarts is great, but the constant danger for their lives as they stayed one step ahead (almost) of the Death Eaters kept me on the edge of my seat.

I may be the only person in the world who didn't think the book dragged in the middle. In fact, I found that the fleeing and hiding by Harry, Hermione and Ron to be incredibly tense.

That part reminded me a lot of the books and movies I've seen that relate how the jews fled and hid from the Nazi's in WW2. The idea that no matter where you hid or went one slip up could cost you your life.

How could that be considered dragging? Sure, the battle of Hogwarts is great, but the constant danger for their lives as they stayed one step ahead (almost) of the Death Eaters kept me on the edge of my seat.

Sasha: When Hedwig bought it, besides catching me totally by surprise and causing me to exclaim "Motherfucker!", it let me know right off the bat that the bodies were going to stack up like cordwood

And, yet, they didn't. Which I'm coming to realize I found disappointing.

I wasn't necessarily looking forward to a Hamlet-like closing with bodies strewn all across teh stage, but Rowling had said very clearly that we're dealing with true evil and it doesn't target extras. The main characters were in peril and major folks would die.

And yet very few did. And those that did, with the exception of Fred, all died off screen. As if, despite what she'd said, Rowling couldn't bring herself to write about these characters deaths.

Y'know, it's stuff like this that make me really glad I'm getting this book on Friday, along with Darkness of the Light if I can find it. (Don't worry, I didn't read anything anybody posted, kinda the blog version of sticking my fingers in my ears and going "LALALALALALALALALALALALALALALAALALALALAALA" while everybody else talks.) But, having talked to many people around me that have gotten it, and with the only bad review coming from someone who gives nothing but bad reviews, I just can't wait to get my grubby big paws on it. Shame I'll have to wait until Stace finishes it. But, if I can get same paws on Darkness of the Light, I'll put my After Effects book aside for a while.

And I apologize to anyone, (granted, nobody around here knows what I look like) who, after reading the Lalalala bit, got a disturbing visual. My bad.

LorE: Interesting idea regarding HArry and Syltherin...the problem, though is the book never shows Slytherin's being good. We see Gryfendor bravery as good, Ravenclaw smarts, and Hufflepuff caring...but we never see why Syltherin ambition is a good thing, or any of its members doing the right thing. None of them join the fight at the end...they all either nick off or join the bad guys. The closest you get is Snape working for Dumbledore, but that's not him doing it because Voldemort is wrong, but because Voldemort killed someone he loved..he was basically motivated by revenge, not goodness.

I thought the epilogue works cause it lets you know they were okay and did get married...but vague enough so she didn't tell you what they are doing. So its up to you to think...is Harry working for the ministry like he originally wanted? Are Harry and Ginny working together at something. Did Ron become a Quiditch Manager? I think she left it open for us to fantasize about with just enough to know its a Happily Ever After life.

I just finished the book at 2:30 a.m. this morning. Believe it or not, one of the best things about reading the book was the comments posted here. A lot of the comments brought up points I had forgotten, overlooked and never thought about. I liked what people thought should have been included, what was left vague, why Rowling might have done something.

A big thanks to Rowling for many enjoyable hours and to all of you for your comments.

Actually Slughorn's a Slytherin and Nigellus Black. Both were working against Voldemort.
And of the Slyhtherin kids only three or four if you count Pansy went to actually help Voldemort.

Sure the Slytherins weren't shown as the great heroes of the book, but so what... It's in their nature to do the sneaky thing, rather than open bravery. Snape's a great example of this.

And personally I've never seen why love for one person is an unworthy motive for doing good. In fact, it's one of the greatest things there are.

Snape loved Lilly, as a best friend, maybe even as someone in love with her and in the name of her memory, knowing he'll never get anything out of it for himself, he did what he could to save lives. It might not have been for the greater good, but that doesn't make it any less worthy of respect.

I forgot something. Several months ago, Rowling said the books final word would be "scar". In fact, our local paper had a contest to see who could write the best last line ending with scar. Obviously, that didn't happen.

If Rowling wrote the epilogue years ago as was stated in comments above, when and why was the last word changed?

My contest submission:

"And now," said the plastic surgeon, "breathe deeply, count backwards from 100 and when you awake, I will have gotten rid of that damn scar."

I didn't find any part of this book "slow" or dragging.

Megan

TransDutch: I didn't think of Equus-metafictionally in the scene PAD mentions, but in that, and a few other scenes, I wondered how exactly they were going to film it. For example - 7 Harrys - since they all are wearing their original clothing when they turn into Harry, and then change clothes, there could be some interesting totally-in-the-British-tradition cross-dressing.

Harry's thought that he'd like the others to be more respectiful of his privacy as they changed clothes got me thinking of some of the more interesting (or sophmoric?) things one could do with a batch of Polyjuice.

Ever wonder what the person looks like naked? Get a strand of hair and find out. Is there an easy path, in the wizarding world, for those who want to switch genders? An interested couple could take a bit and see how things work from the other person's point of view...

Still regarding the epi:

I have to dispute the one poster's assertion that the epilogue was needed because it showed Harry became a man.

That in itself was my main problem--it showed a grown up Harry, a domesticated Harry. It's that FINALITY of it, that Harry grew up and had kids, that ruins the fun of...what happened next?

Maybe it's also because I would like to think there could be more books in the future, no matter what has been said, and the idea of, like someone said, the Heirs of Potter isn't what I'd personally be interested in.

No, the epi doesn't rule out that Harry had tons of adventures in his twentys but it sets up a new time frame, of his children, rather of him himself. And I'm sorry, but I don't like it.

Is it cute? Yes. Is it a happy ending? Yes. Would it have worked better three books ago? Yes. As it is, it sticks out like a sore thumb and while it may show that he's grown up and is a man and is the father that he never got to have--it also disappoints BECAUSE of those reasons.

Contest submission:

"And yet, with all that said, Harry was still concerned that--in the entirety of 'The Lion King'--his son's favorite character after all this time remained Scar."

PAD

"Czar at July 25, 2007 05:12 PM "

You must be a bloke! :-)

"No, the epi doesn't rule out that Harry had tons of adventures in his twentys but it sets up a new time frame, of his children, rather of him himself."

This is a problem for you because? Ms Rowling stated from the outset that this was the last novel, so why is this an issue if she's not going to write any more of them?

Plus the time frame jump - ok a larger jump than the last "New Frontier" jump, but still allows the possibility of more stories of what happened in the intervening years being revealed should Ms Rowling change her mind.

Hmmm. At least she did not end the last book with Journey playing in the background, Harry and his friends eating a meal in the dining room and suddenly a fade to black.

I have to admit, though, that I was hoping that on the last page would be the words "To be continued." Sure, I would have been angry about being misled that it was the last book, but I would also would have been relieved.

Contest submission by PAD--"And yet, with all that said, Harry was still concerned that--in the entirety of 'The Lion King'--his son's favorite character after all this time remained Scar."

And that, my fellow readers, is why he is the author and I am the book purchasing reader. Thanks PAD.

I enjoyed the book, and I was able to avoid spoilers until after I'd read it. However, I came across a page earlier tonight which quite annoyed me:
http://www.encyclopediadramatica.com/Harry_Potter

It gives away all the spoilers (which is ok now that I've read the book), but it also has video clips of people who read the leaked version and then went to the midnight bookstore openings with megaphones and shouted out all the spoilers. As far as I can tell, this wasn't actually illegal, it was just rude.

I know that lots of people here (including PAD) have strong views on free speech, so I'm genuinely curious about your view on this. Is it just something that we have to tolerate (because the alternative would be worse)? Should the police be allowed to arrest people for just being arseholes? Would some kind of lynch mob be justified?

The hecklers in London went to at least four different bookshops, so chasing them away from one wouldn't have helped the people queueing up at other shops (some of whom had been there since 3pm, during rain that's caused huge flooding). My gut reaction is to say that they deserved to have their arms broken; that way they'd have to go off to hospital, and they wouldn't be bothering anyone else. However, I recognise that this would be illegal, and I'd like to think that there's a better way of handling a situation like that; as I say, I'd be interested to hear what the rest of you think. For that matter, did any of you encounter these idiots?

John C. Kirk wrote:

My gut reaction is to say that they deserved to have their arms broken; that way they'd have to go off to hospital, and they wouldn't be bothering anyone else. However, I recognise that this would be illegal, and I'd like to think that there's a better way of handling a situation like that; as I say, I'd be interested to hear what the rest of you think.

Illegal != wrong. Still, hasn't Peter said the best way to combat speech is with more speech, or something along those lines? Grab a megaphone and start spreading spoilers of your own. As long as you keep them within the realm of possibility, you've essentially unspoiled those who were spoiled.

sigh

Obviously, the first paragraph of the above, after "John C. Kirk wrote:", should also have been bolded. Sorry, John; I failed to attribute properly not out of malice, but out of stupidity.

Re: Umbridge not getting a visible comeuppance...well, Harry does sneak into her office in the Ministry (and steals back Moody's magical eye in the process), and he and Hermoine Stun her, steal Slytherin's locket from around her very neck, and manage with Ron's help to spring a bunch of Muggle-born witches and wizards right under her nose.

Admittedly, the kids were Polyjuiced at the time (if you'll forgive the verbing of the noun), and were careful not to be seen in their true forms by their chosen victims, but I doubt it took very long to figure out what must have happened, once the real people recovered/were found.

To be honest, with that kind of mess on her hands, I doubt very much that Umbridge had a very nice time of things after that. ***insert evil laughter here***

And as I was typing this, something occurred to me: does anyone else find it odd that Slytherin's artifact was a locket that seemed quite obviously designed to hold photos--there's mention made of the locket's glass windows and silken lining--when Slytherin lived a good eight-plus centuries before the advent of photography? I would have had no problem with a locket had it held cameos or miniature paintings, but photos? Since it had been handed down in either the Peverell or Gaunt family line, surely no one would have modified a relic of Slytherin's.

Just...odd...

"does anyone else find it odd that Slytherin's artifact was a locket that seemed quite obviously designed to hold photos--there's mention made of the locket's glass windows and silken lining--when Slytherin lived a good eight-plus centuries before the advent of photography? I would have had no problem with a locket had it held cameos or miniature paintings, but photos? "

Why not miniature oil paintings that come to life and are protected from damage by being behind glass? There is a long history of miniature portraiture on enamel, silhouettes on paper, and probably oil on canvas.

Enjoyed the book a lot, had a few little contentions, but more as a fan than as a literary critic (which I am not).

The mid-portion of the book was boring for me. I loved the danger and just how powerful Voldemort was, being in control of so many strings, having a hand in everything. While I liked that, it was just far too LoTR for me. Wearing a doo-dad that makes you start acting out of character, taking turns wearing it, avoiding the baddies who are out searching for you... more than anything it got repetitive.

So much magic in this world and yet the kids were reduced to using Polyjuice potion over and over (or so it seemed.) Reminds me of my old complaint for Mission Impossible 2 where everyone was wearing masks and voice distorters. We didn't see the uses for dragon's blood, all sorts of potions and elixirs, never seen or used. JK had the chance to pull out all the stops but spent a little too much time using the 'ol standby.

The deaths didn't bother me. I was shocked at how quickly some characters fell, without warning, but no complaints there.

Loved how JK managed to fill in so much Dumbledore history.

Things I would have liked to see explanations for:

The Veil in the Dept. of Mysteries

They can Jinx the name "Voldemort" to sound an alert but they couldn't do the same for the names of hidden Phoenix members or something?

At the end of book 6 Snape warns that Harry needs to practice closing his mind: we never see much reason why it was important.

Similarly, non-verbal spells all but flew out the window. They just didn't matter this time around. I thought they'd be a true sign of mastering wizardry or at least the seriousness of the situation.

Love. Why weren't more characters immune to spells? Harry was protected because of his mother's love and willingness to sacrifice herself. Later, he was protected for willing to do the same. Could McGonnagal, Mrs Weasley or anyone else NOT love their family, students or friends enough that they would willingly die if necessary for them? It'd be a little anti-climax, I'm sure but...?

Minor contentions, but I did love having another HP book to read. I'll miss having a new one to look forward to.

The Veil in the Dept of Ministries is the "veil' between this life and the next. See "Order of the Phoenix" (the book not the movie).

Megan

Interesting that each of the seven Horcruxes was destroyed by someone different. Also note that they were destroyed in the order they were created by Voldemort.

Am I missing something, or does the scene between Harry and Dumbledore at the end basically mean that Harry's been unkillable since the end of Goblet of Fire, so long as Voldemort is still alive? Or maybe it's just that he's unkillable by Voldemort, since Dumbledore is quite determined in the flashback with Snape that Voldemort has to be the one to kill Harry.

Looking at things from the perspective of a fairy tale, the tipping point comes around the middle of the book, around the point that Ron left. The Hero, before he can complete The Quest, must be stripped of all help. After all, isn't one of the main complaints of critics that Harry is never shown as all that powerful magically, or as smart as Hermione or as loyal as Ron? That he seeming has people pushing him along and helping him the entire way (even Voldemort notes this in the final duel)? To see what the hero is really made of, we have to remove all of his crutches, all of his aids. JKR started in the last book by removing Dumbledore, but in this book, he loses Dumbledore AGAIN, as well as his wand, his best friend, and is driven from every sanctuary. It is at that point that the Hero shows what he is worth (and does anyone else think that sword-getting scene was a fairly blatent baptism reference?) After that point, he can get things back because he has proven that he doesn’t need them, that his own courage and will are enough to let him stand on his own.

About the epilogue. I liked it. Yes, it was cheesy, but, as several people have already mentioned, this book was hardly lighthearted, and a happy ending doesn’t really detract from the drama and power of the rest of it. What's more, the story as a whole is in many ways an old-fashioned fairy tale, following many classic storylines (maybe someone can give it a Aarne-Thompson classification?) And the essence of a fairy tale is that the moral are always rewarded, and the evil punished, and that things turn out right in the end. The other elements of the ending (Harry talk with young Albus contrasting with what Harry’s mentors told him, the whole “Circle of life” motif) seem cliché because they are: those same plot points have been used since pre-Grecian times. But they have been used so many times because they speak to something deeply powerful inside everyone.
Final note in an over long post (my apologies to all.) When I first read the epilogue, the pairings of Harry-Ginny, Ron-Hermione seemed too…trite. On the other hand, think about it. Who else could they end up with? Could Hermione really say; “Gee Ron, We’ve been through hell and back, saved each other’s lives dozens of times, fought Voldemort together, but you know, Vicktor Krum can turn a broom really, really fast, so I’m gonna marry him?” Not really plausible. They were going to end up together solely because no other people could hope to understand what they had gone through. Anyone else would be driven off, shut off from the most critical moments the Heros ever faced.
(Sorry again for the long post.)

"Voldemort" is the only word that is only ever used by the resistance. None of Voldemort's supporters use the name, and most Muggles don't even know it. It also adds to the atmosphere of fear and repression that Voldemort's trying to create.

If Harry hadn't learned how to close his mind at will during this book, he would have been overwhelmed by visions during the fight at the Malfoy mansion, not to mention later at Hogwarts.

Harry's mother actually did die to protect Harry, and Harry tried to do the same to protect all his friends. The act, not the intent, is what's important. Come to think of it, Voldemort is the only one who was affected by Harry's sacrifice, so that answers my question; Harry has been unkillable by Voldemort, but nobody else.

I agree on non-verbal spells.

I enjoyed the book thoroughly. However, the middle dragged a bit for me as well.

Then I thought about it a little bit, the fact is, these characters felt like they were stuck with nowhere to go, wandering from place to place with no real sense of direction and a constant sense of resentment. The more I thought about, the more I realized that as a reader, I was feeling a lot like the characters were.

I don't know if that's so much a failure of the book itself, or more how much I've come to identify with these characters and become engrossed in their journey.

Final note in an over long post (my apologies to all.) When I first read the epilogue, the pairings of Harry-Ginny, Ron-Hermione seemed too…trite. On the other hand, think about it. Who else could they end up with? Could Hermione really say; “Gee Ron, We’ve been through hell and back, saved each other’s lives dozens of times, fought Voldemort together, but you know, Vicktor Krum can turn a broom really, really fast, so I’m gonna marry him?” Not really plausible. They were going to end up together solely because no other people could hope to understand what they had gone through. Anyone else would be driven off, shut off from the most critical moments the Heros ever faced.

That may be true with Ron and Hermione, but I never believed the relationship between Harry and Ginny. Nowhere in the series, until suddenly in Year 6, was there really anything that would suggest this fated coupling. Contrast with, say, Luna who besides knowing just as well as Ginny what Harry's gone through (if not moreso), shared a number of scenes with Harry that would foreshadow a relationship.

"Both Moody and Dumbledore had reasons to be very, very alert, and there were any number of signs that might have shown themselves to men such as those. To the kids, especially, who might be overconfident in the power of invisibility alone, such detection might seem like magic, but it might be simple observation."

Plus, a small gang of teenagers (the Marauders) were able to create a means to detect not only someone under the cloak, but the goings-on within Hogwart's at all times, even into the headmaster's office. So the cloak was definitely magically detectable.

I've felt for a while that the reason Dumbledore knew Harry was in Hagrid's cabin was because Dumbledore, through some sort of magic not unlike the Marauder's Map, is aware of Harry's exact whereabouts and activities at all times.

That may be true with Ron and Hermione, but I never believed the relationship between Harry and Ginny. Nowhere in the series, until suddenly in Year 6, was there really anything that would suggest this fated coupling. Contrast with, say, Luna who besides knowing just as well as Ginny what Harry's gone through (if not moreso), shared a number of scenes with Harry that would foreshadow a relationship.

I disagree. JK hinted that Ginny's had a crush on Harry since year 2. (and while the movies are a different animal, there are looks by the actress playing Ginny in the films that would indicate that as well)

I do agree that there weren't that many (if any) scenes that indicated that Harry felt for her the same way, they did share the whole Chamber of Secrets ordeal.

An article link in which Rowling discusses the original epilogue she had written and discarded and more fully tells what happened to some of the characters.

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

I forgot something. Several months ago, Rowling said the books final word would be "scar". In fact, our local paper had a contest to see who could write the best last line ending with scar. Obviously, that didn't happen.

If Rowling wrote the epilogue years ago as was stated in comments above, when and why was the last word changed?

Supposedly, she wrote the original epilogue years ago, and at that time, the last word of the saga was indeed "scar." However, the word is that some characters who originally survived died, and others who originally bit it were given a second chance, which necessitated a rewrite of the final chapter.

-M

Czar -- "No, the epi doesn't rule out that Harry had tons of adventures in his twentys . . ."

However, I would expect Harry to seek out very few dangerous adventures since he wants to ensure that the Elder Wand is never taken from him and it loses it's powers upon Harry's (ideally natural) death. For that reason, I doubt he became an Auror.

Jester

"Defense against the Dark Arts" teacher maybe?

:-)

Megan

I don't think Harry is the Defence against the Dark Arts teacher. If he was a Hogwarts teacher, he would either be getting on the train in the epilogue or he'd already be at Hogwarts getting ready for the start of the school year.

Speaking of Harry's occupation, one thing struck me as rather odd in OOTP. The kids were told to pick a career to work towards, and Harry was shown to having a hard time picking one. Why didn't he go to one of the people who knew his parents and ask what their occupations were. I would have thought he would be curious about this when first being told the truth about his parents, but even if it was overlooked then, he would certainly have wanted to know this when picking his own career path.

International Visiting/Guest Lecturer in DaDA then.

I was trying to be funny - please note the smiley. Maybe he's a househusband and Ginny is the Career Oriented partner?

Megan

Well Rowling did confirm in those post book interviews that he's an auror (Head of the Department) AND a geust Lecturer for DADA

Ron's also an auror and Hermione works in Magical Law Enforcement.

And Harry didn't keep the Eldar wand, He was going to return it to Dumbledore's Grave.

Even if Harry didn't keep the Elder Wand in his possession physically, he was still it's owner, and anyone who defeated him would inherit that ownership, in exactly the same way that Harry became the Elder Wand's owner by defeating Draco, even though Draco didn't have the wand or, indeed, even know about it. Therefore, if Harry was ever defeated, the Elder Wand's ownership would pass on to the killer. Now, such a person probably wouldn't know about that, but Harry wouldn't want to take that chance. And if Harry died of natural causes, with no person responsible, the Wand would lose its power (or, more accurately, would not execute its full power for anyone).

Also, on the subject of "Voldemort" being the only word that was jinxed, there might be an element of good old-fashioned name magic in there, in that you have to own a word or name in order to be able to jinx it.

J.K. wrote the ending almost perfect. The only deaths I felt were needless were Lupin and Tonks with them having a newborn.
I praise her for having a flawed father figure in Dumbledore. Where Gandalf turned down a ring of power, Dumbledore could not resist temptation.
If this book had any feel to it, it was the Chronicles of Narnia. The last battles where similar in the fact that it seemed everybody and their mother, literally, fought. Mrs. Weasley's moment was perfect. Now we can confirm Mrs.Weasley wears the Weasley pants.
Harry's future should be him playing Quidditch. He could have the fun he missed for the last seven years.
Krum Vs. Potter!

"Now we can confirm Mrs.Weasley wears the Weasley pants. Gene at July 26, 2007 09:37 PM"

Was there ever a question over that ?

That may be true with Ron and Hermione, but I never believed the relationship between Harry and Ginny. Nowhere in the series, until suddenly in Year 6, was there really anything that would suggest this fated coupling. Contrast with, say, Luna who besides knowing just as well as Ginny what Harry's gone through (if not moreso), shared a number of scenes with Harry that would foreshadow a relationship.

I disagree. JK hinted that Ginny's had a crush on Harry since year 2. (and while the movies are a different animal, there are looks by the actress playing Ginny in the films that would indicate that as well)

I do agree that there weren't that many (if any) scenes that indicated that Harry felt for her the same way, they did share the whole Chamber of Secrets ordeal.

Yeah, a childish crush on Ginny's part based on hero worship, but nothing more "real" was ever suggested. And like you note, there was pretty much nothing in the series to suggest Harry's increasing fondness and romantic attraction for Ginny. Frankly, it felt like something shoehorned in so that Harry would become part of the big Weasley family in the epilogue.

"Sasha at July 26, 2007 11:29 PM"

Maybe you need to read more "Mills and Boon" type books or some more "bodice rippers". :-)

Megan

Yeah, but Harry's a teenager. Attraction and crushes can develop in the blink of an eye, and Harry and Ginny certainly knew each other well. Harry spent time with her at the Burrow for some weeks before really realizing what he was feeling.

I remember hating one girl to death on Monday and realizing that she was my density on Tuesday. ;-) It can happen.

I admit that the Harry/Ginny thing is convenient, but it's far, far from impossible or even improbable. In a series like HP, I'm more than willing to accept some of these things for the sake of a happy ending.

Eric

It's almost the classic "Girl next door" think.

3 of my aunts were married by 18, one is widowed after 40 odd years, the other 2 still married to their fellas, for 55 years and 42 years respectively.

Megan

CZAR: That in itself was my main problem--it showed a grown up Harry, a domesticated Harry. It's that FINALITY of it, that Harry grew up and had kids, that ruins the fun of...what happened next? ... And I'm sorry, but I don't like it.

I have to agree. The beauty of the books is that they ARE kids. While they all have major problems to deal with, they are not the same hum-drum issues everyone deals with day after day. Children are free to run and plot to overthrow their parents (at least in this country; there are millions working like House Elves)simply because they're relieved of those mortal responsibilities. Knowing that invincible fantastic Harry is reduced to a job, bills, laundry, groceries, taking out the garbage, even finding a place to park a car, reduces him to a working slob like everyone else. It kills the fairy-tale aspect.

Here's a question I've been wondering about since finishing the book. I'd like to hear any theories or explanations people have or know of:

If Harry was a Horcrux and basilisk venom is one of the things that destroys Horcruxes, then why wasn't Harry or that part of Harry destroyed back in Chamber of Secrets when he was bitten?

Thanks.

Patrick,

It was the destruction of the containers that the parts of Voldemort's soul had been but put in which destroyed the horcruxes not just the exposure to venom. So if Harry had died the piece of soul would have been released along with his own, but Fawkes saved him so the fragment of Voldemort's soul remained attached to his own.

Susan O.,

I don't think Harry grows up to be that normal he still lives in a world of magic. The epilogue shows he has a life and is happy, which is what the prophecy promised. To Harry who grew up in extreme discomfort with the Dursleys this happy family life would be an almost perfect happy ending

I finally finished it last night.

"Knowing that invincible fantastic Harry is reduced to a job, bills, laundry, groceries, taking out the garbage, even finding a place to park a car, reduces him to a working slob like everyone else. It kills the fairy-tale aspect."
Except that he doesn't just have any job, he has a job in the Wizarding world. Check out the MSNBC link mentioned above where JK revealed what his job was and some of the things he and Ron did over the years.

Regarding the basilisk venom - Harry needed to "die" once from the venom for the horcrux inside him to die. Fawkes saved him and the horcrux there.

As far as ending with scar. I presume that the second to last sentence was originally basically the same but slightly reworded in her original version.

Regarding Lupin and Tonks, in a USA Today article she mentioned that she added their deaths late in the process while she saved Mr. Weasley from dying in Order of the Phoenix and possibly also in this book. http://www.usatoday.com/life/books/news/2007-07-25-harry-potter-spoilers_N.htm

She killed off of Harry's possible father figures - first Sirius, then Dumbledore, then in this book Mad-Eye. At the end, the last of the Marauders, Lupin, died.

I thought it was nicely ironic that a Slytherin student did destroy one of the Horcruxes - Crabb's fire.

I really liked that Neville came through at the end, pulling Gryffindor's sword out to kill Nagini. I wonder what Griphook's reaction was then the magic of the sorting hat took it away from him?

Neil

Scratch my previous comment about the basilisk venom. I forgot that the only reason he survived from Voldemort's attack while the Horcrux died was due to the love and blood magic. So, as AMC mentioned, the basilisk venom would have killed both Harry and the horcrux if not for Fawkes.

Neil

That kind of makes sense, though isn't Harry or his body the container in a way?

A couple things still strike me as odd: there's a pretty long delay between when Harry was bitten and when Fawkes healed him, but the other horcruxes were destroyed almost instantaneously. Even the Riddle diary, which took a couple stabs to completely kill, was significantly damaged by the first piercing by the basilisk tooth, yet Harry wasn't.

Also, as I think we saw with the locket, it reacted negatively and aggresively to the mere presence and threat of the sword, but Harry never did when he was carrying it.

Also, as I think we saw with the locket, it reacted negatively and aggresively to the mere presence and threat of the sword, but Harry never did when he was carrying it.

The purity of his own soul probably shielded the fragment of Voldemort's to some extent. Also, re basilisk venom, how much did Harry actually get? I remember vaguely that the fang went all the way through his arm, which means it wouldn't have injected much venom (snakes' fangs inject poison at the tip). If he'd been bitten in the forehead, that would have been a different matter, since the scar was always indicated as the physical seat of his link to Voldemort.

Just finished it about a half hour ago. Loved it.

RE: Harry & Ginny. Their coupling became near inevitable (I believe) in the 5th book when Ginny points out that she's the only other person their age who has suffered at Voldemort's hands on as deeply a personal level as Harry. She's the only one who really "gets" him, and vice-versa. Besides, I can attest to just how quickly a life-long romance can develop.

-Rex Hondo-

Stacie just bought the book about twenty minutes ago. Hopefully, by Sunday night I might have something insightful to say around here.

Or, at least I can read this thread without having anything spoiled. This is still me, after all.

RE: Harry & Ginny. Their coupling became near inevitable (I believe) in the 5th book when Ginny points out that she's the only other person their age who has suffered at Voldemort's hands on as deeply a personal level as Harry. She's the only one who really "gets" him, and vice-versa. Besides, I can attest to just how quickly a life-long romance can develop.

I wish they then followed up with a "moment" akin to what Harry and Luna (who was the only one who "got" him at that moment) had. It would have made Harry's sudden epiphany of Ginny=Teh One more believable for me.

Really liked the book. A very satisfying ending. Even more so because ending a successful run like this is often anticlimatic.

I was very satisfied in the way Neville, Molly Dobby, Mrs. McGonnogal, Percy came to their own, as well as the way the wizards finally took action. Up until then most seemed very passive.

I think she handled the death thing very well: it weren't the ones many of us expected, yet the losses were very meaningful.

I didn't feel the part when they were on the run was boring, but I think their was a problem. In the previous books time between the major events was passed going to classes, studying, or doing research in order to solve the mystery of the book. Here they had no everyday routine and little abililty to research, so it seems as if they were spending weeks doing nothing but moving around. However, as somebody says, perhaps this is an authentic way to represent life on the run -- boring and nerve racking at the same time.

I think Rawling has a little difficulty describing romantic relations. As a result of that most of the romantic relationships in the books, especially Harry and Ginny, seem a little sudden and unexplained. Ginny perhas should have been more developed.

Also, it maybe would have been better if more Slytherins would have been shown to fight against Voldemort, if we are to believe that the Slytherin house is as good as the others.

One of the best parts in the series as a whole was the part in which Harry learns that his father was not perfect. However, wheras James Potter's memory played a major role in the series, Lilly Potter's role was neglected. The fact that she finally appeared in Severus's memories in one of the final chapters was good, but I stil feal she was neglected. I would also have liked to learn how come Lilly hooked up with James Potter if he was such an arogant jerk, or how did he change. Or are we going to have Harry Potter prequels?

I didn't hate the epilogue, but I would have liked to see what happened to the wizarding community as a whole on the aftermath of the war, beyond the fact that Harry lived happily ever after. This the treatment of magical creatures change? Is Ron learning to drive because of a change in attitude toward the muggle world? What happened to the Dursleys? What did Harry, Ron and Hermione do afterwards? What happened to Teddy Lupipin? I would also have prefered not to see Harry completely settled down. Perhaps a memorial reunion a year or a few years after the event would have been better, unless Rawling is leaving these questions unanswered for a reason?

What I want to know is what happened to George after his twin died? That had to be a most traumatic experience and the twins, while secondary characters, really engaged my interest over the books. I hate to think George lost his great sense of fun and whimsy after his twin died.

Also, gads, I read this so fast and now other family members have claimed it. How did the Gryffindor sword get into Neville's hands, can someone tell me? Thanks!

What I want to know is what happened to George after his twin died? That had to be a most traumatic experience and the twins, while secondary characters, really engaged my interest over the books. I hate to think George lost his great sense of fun and whimsy after his twin died.

Also, gads, I read this so fast and now other family members have claimed it. How did the Gryffindor sword get into Neville's hands, can someone tell me? Thanks!

"Also, gads, I read this so fast and now other family members have claimed it. How did the Gryffindor sword get into Neville's hands, can someone tell me? Thanks!"

It came again out of the sorting hat that Voldemort put on Neville's head.

Some portions of Rowling's interview. Notably she answers why she changed the last word from "Scar". Also who died and who was originally planned to die, her favorite part of #7, what she told Daniel Radcliffe about Harry dying, and more. Vrey interesting to obsessive fans like me.

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
It was widely reported that the last word of the final Harry Potter book was "scar" and for years Rowling said that was true.

In the epilogue, which is set19 years after the defeat of Voldemort, Rowling paints a picture of Harry standing on platform 9 3/4, his nearest and dearest surrounding him. In her original draft, the last line was “Only those who he loved could see the lightening scar,’” ….or “something like” that, she told Meredith Vieira in an exclusive interview.

Ultimately, Rowling felt that line was too ambiguous, begging the question about whether the scar was still there or not. She said wanted a more concrete statement that Harry had won; Voldemort had been defeated. The scar was still there, but now it was only a scar.

“I wanted to say it’s over. It’s done.”

Rowling changed the last line to: “All was well.”

“That felt right,” she said.

**************************************************

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.

“I suppose I have [started] because the raw material is all in my notes,” Rowling said.

The encyclopedia would include back stories of characters she has already written but had to cut for the sake of narrative arc (“I've said before that Dean Thomas had a much more interesting history than ever appeared in the books”), as well as details about the characters who survive “Deathly Hallows,” characters who continue to live on in Rowling’s mind in a clearly defined magical world.

Hogwarts, for example, has a new headmaster (“McGonagall was really getting on a bit”), and Rowling said she can see Harry going back to give the “odd talk” on Defense Against the Dark Arts. That class, by the way, is now led by a permanent professor, since Voldemort’s death broke the jinx that didn’t allow a teacher to remain in the position for more than a year.

Jen Brown/TODAYshow.com
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Rowling freely offered up these details to Vieira and the 14 fans who asked her questions at Edinburgh Castle in Scotland on Tuesday. In fact, now that she is now longer burdened with guarding the secrets of Book 7, Rowling seemed to delight in discussing her plot choices and clearing up the mysteries that have previously surrounded the books.

The character Rowling couldn’t bear to kill
One of the big stories that has been floating among fans for more than a year is that one character gets a reprieve from death, while two others Rowling didn’t intend to kill end up dying in “Deathly Hallows.” “Mr. Weasley, he was the person who got a reprieve,” Rowling said. “When I sketched out the books, Mr. Weasley was due to die in Book 5.”

Instead, another father dies in the end of Book 7.

Though Rowling couldn’t bear to kill off Arthur Weasley, that didn't mean the other deaths in the book were easy to take. Given the bloodbath that is “Deathly Hallows,” the writing of it was bound to be an emotional roller coaster.

But nothing in the entire process of the series was more difficult than writing the scene when Harry, accompanied by his lost loved ones — including his parents, James and Lily, and his godfather, Sirius — walks into the forest with the intent of sacrificing his life in the name of defeating Voldemort, Rowling said, adding it is her favorite passage in all seven books.

“I didn't cry as I was writing [that chapter], but when I finished writing, I had an enormous explosion of emotion and I cried and cried and cried,” Rowling said.

“That was partly because of the content — and partly because it had been planned for so long and been roughed out for so long. And to write the definitive version felt like a — a huge climax.”

“The Deathly Hallows” is the climax to the last 17 years of Rowling’s life, a time when she has gone from a single, divorced mother living on public assistance to a happily married mother of three and one of the richest women in the world.

It’s now time to sit back for a bit and enjoy the life that Harry has given her, Rowling said. And, when she’s ready, there’s always that encyclopedia waiting in the wings.

“I’m not going to do it tomorrow because I’d really like a break,” Rowling said, laughing. “So you may be waiting.”

***********************************************************

Who lives and who dies
And much of the excitement about the final chapter of the epic tale, “Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows,” has also been defined by speculation about which characters die.

Rowling has been besieged by questions about who lives and who dies. She told Vieira of talking to a young reader who begged her not to kill certain characters, and her heartbreak at knowing that they had already been killed off by her pen. Even her sister looked at her once and said, “If you kill Hagrid, I won’t forgive you.”

“You’re lucky you didn’t kill Hagrid,” Vieira said, and Rowling laughed, replying, “I never planned to kill Hagrid.”

But she kept her secrets well. Even Daniel Radcliffe, the actor who plays Harry Potter, had to ask about his character’s fate.

“I took him out to dinner, and at one point during dinner, he leant in and he said, ‘Look, I’ve just gotta ask you. Do I die?’” Rowling said.

“I whispered, so no one else could hear, ‘You get a death scene,’” she said.

“But Dan is very smart. And I’m pretty sure he would have walked away from dinner thinking, ‘Yeah, I get a death scene, but what does that mean? She didn't say, ‘Yes, you die,’ so I hope he's happy.”

Rowling praised the five movies filmed so far, saying that they perfectly capture her vision, and said she wanted to be first in line when Universal Studios, whose parent company is NBC Universal, opens its Harry Potter theme park.

The interview took place in Edinburgh Castle in Scotland, a Hogwarts-like fortress.

At one point, Vieira confessed that one of her favorite scenes in the first book is when the 11-year-old Harry finds the Mirror of Erised, which shows the person looking into it his or her deepest desire.

“There’s something about that, when he looks in the mirror and sees his family, that’s so moving to me. If I had the mirror here and you looked in, what do you think you would see?” Vieira asked.

“I would definitely see what Harry sees. I would have seen my mother,” Rowling said. “I would be able to have a conversation with my mother.”

*******************************************

Am I the only one who expected the begger with the bloody bandage over his eye in Diagon Alley to be Mad-Eye Moody? They never found his body, after all...

I wish they then followed up with a "moment" akin to what Harry and Luna (who was the only one who "got" him at that moment) had.

They had that in book 5. Harry poured out his heart over his desire to see Sirius, and she listened to him and then helped him, making her pretty much the first person in that book to really do so. (By contrast, anyone pulling for Harry to get together with Hermione has to deal with the fact that she spent 75% of her interaction with him in that book haranguing and berating him.) It's not a flashy, obvious scene because the narrative focus at that point is on Harry's worries and not on Ginny, but it's definitely there.

Wow. I mean, Oh. My God. WOW.

I just finished it. What a beautiful book.

That moment when Harry confronted Voldemort the final time, and with utter confidence, knew he’d win, and knew why he’d win, speaking and comporting himself as if he truly owned himself—God, what a wonderful scene that was. Somehow, I also imagined the final confrontation between the two as taking place in the Great Hall. I don’t know why, maybe because it’s the perfect place for everyone to witness the battle, so it was just logical that I glommed onto it as J.K. did, but it was fun to see that that’s where it happened. J.K. Rowling, the master of setting things up for a final payoff later, finally brought together all the threads of the premises she had set up in the past six books, so that when Voldemort was defeated, it was truly as an extension of those premises, and of Harry’s understanding of them, and of his moral superiority to Voldemort, rather than a mere power vs. power battle, which would’ve just undercut the moral themes Rowling has been visiting throughout the books, and been implausible if Harry won.

One interesting wrinkle in the plot, which sorta seemed to assuage my fears of characters dying, was that the Death Eaters would not engage in a hot war, but in an occupation of the British wizarding world, with the good guys forced to wage a guerilla resistance. This meant that they would not openly kill people left and right, but present themselves as open targets by taking prominent positions in the Ministry and other important posts.

The book did seem to drag at times, as during the wedding party, but Rowling really picked up steam little by little with loads of scary confrontations with Death Eaters and snatchers. I was truly frightened for Harry when the enemies appeared in that Muggle café, and in continuing to read the book, and all the times when they were captured by Fenrir and the others, I truly came to understand how people can be frightened by reading a scary book by authors like Stephen King, because it is in the attachment we have for the characters and our fear that so many of these beloved people would die that I feared that Harry and his friends would die. Moody. Hedwig. Fred. It was just heartbreaking when these three died—Fred most of all, and I was mentally begging Rowling not to kill off the trio or Ginny, because I truly wanted to see Harry and Ginny and Hermione and have a Happy Ever After. I was happy when Hermione finally kissed Ron when Ron exhibited a sincere embracement of concern for House Elves, but when it seemed that Harry had to die, I reeled in shock. “No! I don’t want him to die! He has to be the one to kill Voldemort! Rowling can’t leave Ginny to bereave Harry!”, I thought. But then I got to understand that this had to be done, and that the quotes in the beginning of the book may have been Rowling’s way to prepare the reader for not just the other characters’ deaths, but Harry’s as well, and came to accept it. So when Dumbledore revealed that Harry could go back, and explained the significance of his being pleased when Harry told him at the end of Goblet that Voldemort now had his blood in his veins, it all came together beautifully, and wonder if Harry was the dead character who Rowling said in interviews had gotten a “reprieve”.

The epilogue was interesting, though much of my reading it was devoted to my mentally keeping track of who all the new names were. I was also wondering why the last word of the book was not “scar”, as had been reported (although that word was in the second-to-last sentence—slight copyedit at the last minute?).

NITS & NOTES:
It was nice that Rowling had quotes in the beginning of the book, something she had never done before. The quotes’ theme of death seemed like her way of letting the reader know that characters would be dying in the book, but also reassuring them that it was part of the story, and that the deaths would serve that story.

Dudley’s overture to Harry? Wow. A nice reiteration of Rowling’s theme that everyone can change. But hey, the chapter illustration kinda spoiled it.

The tension surrounding Viktor’s perception of Grindelwald’s symbol vs. the fact that it’s really the symbol of the Deathly Hallows seemed like a parallel to how many are unaware that the swastika was originally used by Hindus, Jainists, Native Americans, and in the art and architecture of the ancient Greco-Romans, Chinese, Japanese and Koreans long before the Nazis adopted it.

Some pointed out that Dobby apparates out of the infirmary while Harry recuperated from Lockhart de-boning his arm in Chamber of Secrets, despite apparating not being possible at Hogwarts. Some suggested that house elves are an exception to this, and in the scene in which Harry has Kreacher explain to him how Voldemort created the potion basin with the locket and Regulus stole it, Rowling explicitly establishes this to be the case. Good for her.

On Page 223, a mention is made of how Muggles can’t see number 12 Grimmauld Place, which makes eleven sit next to thirteen. Just out of curiosity, how are houses numbered in England? In the States, a number eleven would sit next to thirteen, because odd-numbered buildings are situated on one side of the street, and even-numbered ones on the opposite side.

What’s the deal with the “top step” of Grimmauld Place? When Lupin shows up there, he tells the trio that he apparated onto the top step, indicating that the Death Eaters monitoring the place could not see him. Later, the trio step onto that step to do the same. Was it mentioned in Order of the Phoenix that a person is invisible when on that step?

Why don’t the trio make better use of Kreacher? Instead of just using him as a butler, they could have him round up as many Death Eaters as he can, and if not kill them, then stash them away somewhere, perhaps in a trunk jail like the one Barty Crouch Jr. kept Moody in in Goblet of Fire. They could take him to the Ministry to help them get the locket. For that matter, why doesn’t the Order work on retaking the Ministry, since that’s the point at which Voldemort and the Death Eaters have taken control of the wizarding world’s Britain?

How does Harry know that the magical eye on the door of Umbridge’s office is Moody’s? Couldn’t Umbridge have bought her own?

Harry sneaks into Thicknesse’s office, and after a bit, the door opens, and Thicknesse walks in. Harry then “backs out” of the office, but Rowling makes no mention of the door. Didn’t Harry have to open the door to leave the office? Wouldn’t Thicknesse have noticed that?

I’ve often wondered if there is a “replicator” spell that can duplicate things like Harry’s Invisibility Cloak. On Page 263, when procuring the locket, Hermione duplicates it with a Geminio spell. So can’t they do this with other things, like the cloak? With polyjuice potion? Tokens? Or are these among the things that are forbidden by Gamp’s Laws of Transfiguration, like food?

Half of the Muggle-born wizards that the trio help escape from the Ministry have wands. Why didn’t their captors confiscate them when they were rounded up? And if they didn’t, why do the other half not have wands?

Chapter 18 indicates that Grindelwald befriended Dumbledore “some months” after being expelled from Durmstrang at age 16. Based on the photograph of them together, and their friendship, I understood that they were roughly the same age, give or take a few years, and indeed, Hermione mentions that they were “both really young”. They then parted after barely two months of friendship, and didn’t meet again until five years later, when they met for their duel, which Philosopher’s Stone indicated was in 1945. But waitaminute—this all makes Dumbledore sound really young. Philosopher’s Stone indicated that Dumbledore was Nicholas Flamel’s partner in alchemy. But Flamel lived and conducted work in alchemy in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries. Wasn’t Dumbledore a contemporary of Flamel? If not, does this mean that Dumbledore is no older than he appears in the books and movies? If so, does that mean that Dumbledore didn’t assist Flamel in alchemy, and that the Philosopher’s Stone wasn’t created until the 20th century???? But that can’t be it, because the Stone is what allowed Flamel and his wife to survive for so many centuries in the first place. It would’ve made no sense for Dumbledore to have become Flamel’s partner in the 20th century after Flamel created the Stone, for what need would Flamel have for a young upstart “partner” when he had already reached alchemy’s greatest achievement and goal?

Why wasn’t Ron’s hand damaged after destroying the locket horcrux as Dumbledore’s was? Did this only happen with Dumbledore because the ring horcrux was also one of the Deathly Hallows?

I was led to believe that the life debt that Pettigrew owed to Harry would play a significant role in Harry’s ultimate defeat of Voldemort, so I was surprised when it merely helped Harry and his friends escape Malfoy Manor.

And since Harry saved Malfoy’s life by dragging him out of the flame-engulfed Room of Requirement, I now wondered if there would be yet another life debt that would play into Harry’s defeat of Voldemort, but I guess not.

Given how good J.K. Rowling is at setting things up far in advance for a later revelatory payoff, I definitely did not like how, on Page 635, Fiendfyre was suddenly pulled out of the hat at the last minute as something that not only could destroy horcruxes, but which Hermione knew about. Yeah, okay, she didn’t consider using it because it was so dangerous, but so what? She could at least have brought it up earlier, if only to establish it up front and explain why she would not consider using it. Bringing it up here during the Battle of Hogwarts didn’t ring true.

In Chapter 33, “The Prince’s Tale”, Harry is experiencing Snape’s memories. Each time the memory changes, Rowling notes it explicitly that Harry’s surroundings change. At one point, on page 680, Harry finds himself in Dumbledore’s office, privy to a meeting between Dumbledore and Snape. Then, on page 685, it simply says, “Dumbledore glanced around to make sure that they were alone. They were close by the Forbidden Forest now…” Was this a memory change?

If Teddy Tonks was born during this book, then nineteen years later would be a year or two after he graduated from Hogwarts. Why would he be on the Hogwarts Express?

It took me a while to realize the family member by which Victoire was James’ cousin. I had to reread the page before I realized—duh—that it was a French name, and obviously a daughter of Bill and Fleur’s.

Hey Luigi,

I think I can clear up a few things you noted, since I've been re-reading the damn thing obsessively. So much detail!

1. "Philosopher’s Stone indicated that Dumbledore was Nicholas Flamel’s partner in alchemy. But Flamel lived and conducted work in alchemy in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries. Wasn’t Dumbledore a contemporary of Flamel?"

Flamel used the Philosopher's stone to make Elixir of Life, effectively making himself immortal, thus he lived for hundreds of years.

2. "Why wasn’t Ron’s hand damaged after destroying the locket horcrux as Dumbledore’s was? Did this only happen with Dumbledore because the ring horcrux was also one of the Deathly Hallows?"

Dumbledore only got hurt because he tried to use the stone; he put it on his finger to raise the dead. Unfortunately, Voldemort had cursed it, and the curse went off on Dumbledore. That's why he had Snape kill him; hoping that this would break the power of the Elder wand. Draco, however, had already defeated him, thus the wand still had power, and passed to Harry.

3. "If Teddy Tonks was born during this book, then nineteen years later would be a year or two after he graduated from Hogwarts. Why would he be on the Hogwarts Express?"

I don't think it explicitly said that he was going to Hogwarts, I took it as a kiss saying goodbye to the slightly younger Victoire who is probably in her last year.

4. "And since Harry saved Malfoy’s life by dragging him out of the flame-engulfed Room of Requirement, I now wondered if there would be yet another life debt that would play into Harry’s defeat of Voldemort, but I guess not."

It seemed that Harry scared Malfoy onto the straight and narrow. When they meet, he is hostile, but not nearly as much as Lucius was. He's just an asshole now, as opposed to evil.

I’ve often wondered if there is a “replicator” spell that can duplicate things like Harry’s Invisibility Cloak. On Page 263, when procuring the locket, Hermione duplicates it with a Geminio spell. So can’t they do this with other things, like the cloak? With polyjuice potion? Tokens? Or are these among the things that are forbidden by Gamp’s Laws of Transfiguration, like food?

They could probably duplicate the appearence of the cloak or the potion, but they probably wouldn't have the magical abilities.

Chapter 18 indicates that Grindelwald befriended Dumbledore “some months” after being expelled from Durmstrang at age 16. Based on the photograph of them together, and their friendship, I understood that they were roughly the same age, give or take a few years, and indeed, Hermione mentions that they were “both really young”. They then parted after barely two months of friendship, and didn’t meet again until five years later, when they met for their duel, which Philosopher’s Stone indicated was in 1945.

It wasn't 5 years later. It was 5 years into Grindelwald's "Dark Lord" period that Dumbledore finally went up against him. What effect this all had on the Muggle world given the years involved remains to be revealed. I was also around this time that Tom Riddle graduated from Hogwarts.
BTW, according to various sources, Dumbledore was between 150 and 160 at the time of his death.

David

I’ve often wondered if there is a “replicator” spell that can duplicate things like Harry’s Invisibility Cloak. On Page 263, when procuring the locket, Hermione duplicates it with a Geminio spell. So can’t they do this with other things, like the cloak? With polyjuice potion? Tokens? Or are these among the things that are forbidden by Gamp’s Laws of Transfiguration, like food?

I imagine these "duplicates" are worthless, much like the extra stuff created by Gringotts when they break into the LeStrange vault. Duplicate polyjuice potion might look the same and taste the same, but it wouldn't work.

BTW, and I am by no means an expert on how Rowling's magic works, I think that Geminio was a charm of some kind, which changes how things look and work, and not actual Transfiguration, which changes the very nature of what they are. For example, you could use Geminio on a cheeseburger and make a "fake" cheeseburger. The magic of the charm might make the cheeseburger seem real, have smell and taste, etc., but it would provide no nourishment or satisfaction, because the charm doesn't create the life necessary for food. Nonlife, in other words, cannot be transfigured into life. Or something like that.

Here's hoping the Potter-pedia Rowling's supposed to be writing answers some of those questions.

Eric

Oh, one other thing: At one point during his detention in the book Order of the Phoenix, Umbridge stares at Harry, and Harry’s scar hurts, implying a connection between Umbridge and Voldemort. I assumed this would be cleared up by the end of the story, but there was nothing in this book about it. What gives?

In reading these posts, I’m beginning to agree that yes, there should’ve been more details, especially about Umbridge and the Malfoys, but I would’ve put it before the Epilogue instead of in it. I’m even wondering if leaving the ending more open without an Epilogue, so that the reader can imagine their own Happily Ever Afters, would’ve been more advisable.

Sasha: Interesting bits of revelation of who "that awful boy" Aunt Petunia referred to…
Luigi Novi: Which book was this in? This one? Or a previous one?

John C. Kirk: However, I came across a page earlier tonight which quite annoyed me…
Luigi Novi: Just my opinion, John, but you might’ve considered not posting that url at all, so as to not give them more publicity, especially when you consider that that article features a pic of Emma Watson making the polyjuice potion from Chamber of Secrets, which has been photoshopped to so that her panties are showing, and features the caption “You can totally see up her dress.” Given that she was about 11-12 years old at the time, I don’t think it’s necessary to give publicity to sites with kiddie porn on them in order to express dislike of them.

Jester: However, I would expect Harry to seek out very few dangerous adventures since he wants to ensure that the Elder Wand is never taken from him and it loses it's powers upon Harry's (ideally natural) death. For that reason, I doubt he became an Auror.…
Luigi Novi: Harry doesn’t have the wand. He left it at Hogwarts, as he indicated to Dumbledore’s portrait. As for becoming an Auror, Rowling indicated in the interview that I and someone else linked to at http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19959323/, that Harry and Ron not only became Aurors, but Harry became head of the Auror Department at the MoM.

Eric Qel-Droma: I remember hating one girl to death on Monday and realizing that she was my density on Tuesday.
Luigi Novi: Your ”density”? Wow, how romantic. :-)

Susan O: Knowing that invincible fantastic Harry is reduced to a job, bills, laundry, groceries, taking out the garbage, even finding a place to park a car, reduces him to a working slob like everyone else. It kills the fairy-tale aspect.
Luigi Novi: I don’t recall anything in the books that show Harry to be “invincible”, but quite the opposite. I also don’t see what the epilogue has to do with “being reduced to bills and laundry”, since it’s merely you decision to frame his life that way. Falling in love, getting married, and having a family is a “reduction”? I don’t see it that way. The way I see it, Harry has finally found the family he has always lacked in life, his demons have been conquered, literally and figuratively, has a great life, and is doing a job he’s been wanting to do since he was in school. If this is not a “reduction” when it happens to people in real life, why would it be thus in a fairy tale?

Patrick Hamilton: That kind of makes sense, though isn't Harry or his body the container in a way?
Luigi Novi: Yes, but it’s not a mere matter of it being pierced. If it were, then any time he got a cut, or for that matter, when Pettigrew stabbed him at the end of Goblet, that would’ve done the trick too. But it didn’t. When the horcrux is a living being, it has to die to cease being a horcrux.

Cary, thank you for your responses.

Cary: Flamel used the Philosopher's stone to make Elixir of Life, effectively making himself immortal, thus he lived for hundreds of years.
Luigi Novi: Read the rest of that passage in my post.

Cary: Dumbledore only got hurt because he tried to use the stone.
Luigi Novi: Yeah, I neglected to more closely proofread that post before posting. I wrote that after I read that part of the book, and should’ve removed it when I was done with it. Thanks, though..

Cary: I don't think it explicitly said that he was going to Hogwarts, I took it as a kiss saying goodbye to the slightly younger Victoire who is probably in her last year.
Luigi Novi: Yeah, after a while, I thought of that too.

David Serchay: It wasn't 5 years later. It was 5 years into Grindelwald's "Dark Lord" period that Dumbledore finally went up against him.
Luigi Novi: Rereading that passage, that seems unclear. It mentions that Dumbledore delayed for five years of disappearances and attacks, his confrontation with Grindelwald, but because it is placed right after the scene of Ariana’s funeral, and no mention is made of how long before his “Dark Lord” period began, it read to me as if it was soon after. Thanks for pointing that out.

Eric Qel-Droma: I remember hating one girl to death on Monday and realizing that she was my density on Tuesday.
Luigi Novi: Your ”density”? Wow, how romantic. :-)

P&P: It's a "Back to the Future" reference.

David Serchay: It wasn't 5 years later. It was 5 years into Grindelwald's "Dark Lord" period that Dumbledore finally went up against him.
Luigi Novi: Rereading that passage, that seems unclear. It mentions that Dumbledore delayed for five years of disappearances and attacks, his confrontation with Grindelwald, but because it is placed right after the scene of Ariana’s funeral, and no mention is made of how long before his “Dark Lord” period began, it read to me as if it was soon after. Thanks for pointing that out.

I think some of that had been covered earlier. Both passages were from articles written by Rita Skeeter.

David

"Patrick Hamilton: That kind of makes sense, though isn't Harry or his body the container in a way?
Luigi Novi: Yes, but it’s not a mere matter of it being pierced. If it were, then any time he got a cut, or for that matter, when Pettigrew stabbed him at the end of Goblet, that would’ve done the trick too. But it didn’t. When the horcrux is a living being, it has to die to cease being a horcrux."

But the Horcrux has to be pierced/destroyed by specific things. Hermione mentions in DH that Horcruxes are notoriously difficult to destroy; only certain things--such as the sword or basilisk venom--destroy them. So the other wounds Harry received wouldn't do anything to the Horcrux since they weren't--as far as we know--from one of these specific methods or objects.

"Oh, one other thing: At one point during his detention in the book Order of the Phoenix, Umbridge stares at Harry, and Harry’s scar hurts, implying a connection between Umbridge and Voldemort. I assumed this would be cleared up by the end of the story, but there was nothing in this book about it. What gives?"

Further on in OotP, Harry realizes that the scar hurting him during Umbridge's detention was coincidental - it did not relate to Umbridge at all. The scar hurt because Voldemort was feeling a powerful emotion (in this case, it was happiness) but Harry didn't recognize the leaping feeling for what it was since he himself was so miserable at the time. If I remember correctly he came to this realization after his Occlumency lesson with Snape, when Ron went to check on him and he was feeling another scar pain & emotion unrelated to his own feelings.

"If Teddy Tonks was born during this book, then nineteen years later would be a year or two after he graduated from Hogwarts. Why would he be on the Hogwarts Express?"

The epilogue said that Teddy Lupin was there to see Victorie off - there was no mention of him getting on the train.

Page 605 Canadian Edition, paraphrasing the passage to include dialogue only: James said "Our Teddy! Teddy Lupin! Snogging our Victorie! Our cousin! And I asked Teddy what he was doing -" Ginny says "You interrupted them? You are so like Ron -" James continues "and he said he'd come to see her off! And then he told me to go away. He's snogging her!"

"Harry sneaks into Thicknesse’s office, and after a bit, the door opens, and Thicknesse walks in. Harry then “backs out” of the office, but Rowling makes no mention of the door. Didn’t Harry have to open the door to leave the office? Wouldn’t Thicknesse have noticed that?"

Harry snuck into Umbridge's office. Thicknesse came into the office while Harry was there...and I just assumed he didn't close the door when he came in, as he was just leaving her a note, so Harry was able to sneak out through the open door.

"Given how good J.K. Rowling is at setting things up far in advance for a later revelatory payoff, I definitely did not like how, on Page 635, Fiendfyre was suddenly pulled out of the hat at the last minute as something that not only could destroy horcruxes, but which Hermione knew about. Yeah, okay, she didn’t consider using it because it was so dangerous, but so what? She could at least have brought it up earlier, if only to establish it up front and explain why she would not consider using it. Bringing it up here during the Battle of Hogwarts didn’t ring true."

This didn't surprise me at all. She has a history of keeping things to herself unless she is absolutely sure about them - remember CoS? She figured out the Basilisk, why Harry could hear the voice but no one else could (parseltongue), but had to check in the library to make sure she was right before telling Ron & Harry. Fiendfyre was a dangerous spell that she was not familiar with, did not have a teacher or probably even a book to describe how to cast it, and I would imagine it's not "Ministiry of Magic Approved" - so in her mind, it was irrelevant until she saw it in action.

The more I read this book, the more impressed I am with how tightly the stories were woven together - an incredible feat, I think. I look forward to re-reading more Harry Potter in the future and am anxiously awaiting the encyclopedia that Jo Rowling has promised.

Having come to the end of the story, I think PoA is still my favorite book. It's the one that started exploding the wizarding world as much bigger then Harry and his adventures, fleshed out his dad, (The mauraders!).

But I loved 7. And without a doubt, my single favorite line in HP ever:
"But he was home. Hogwarts was the first and best home he had known. He and Voldemort and Snape, the abandoned boys, had all found a home here..."

/cry

I love how it links Harry, V, and Snape. I love how it underscores the fact that they were all so similar. All three were abandoned by their families in many ways. All three had reasons to hate the world.

Yet Harry didn't. What set him apart was the fact he still had the ability to love. His friends saved the day throughout the series. If he had rejected friends for Followers as Voldy did, he would have lost.

Sasha: Interesting bits of revelation of who "that awful boy" Aunt Petunia referred to…
Luigi Novi: Which book was this in? This one? Or a previous one?

Order of the Phoenix. When Harry tells the Dursleys about the Dementors, Aunt Petunia knows what they are, and explains that she heard "that awful boy" telling Lily about them (we see that scene during Snape's memories). At the time we were probably meant to think it was James.

On Page 223, a mention is made of how Muggles can’t see number 12 Grimmauld Place, which makes eleven sit next to thirteen. Just out of curiosity, how are houses numbered in England? In the States, a number eleven would sit next to thirteen, because odd-numbered buildings are situated on one side of the street, and even-numbered ones on the opposite side.

I believe that the English practice is to number concurrently on a side--10 through 12 Downing Street adjoin each other, for example.

How does Harry know that the magical eye on the door of Umbridge’s office is Moody’s? Couldn’t Umbridge have bought her own?

I suspect it's an item that was specially created rather than bought off the rack; it's a pretty powerful item, and the demand for them (as prosthetics, not security cameras) is probably pretty low. (Moody was clearly willing to sacrifice cosmetic appearance for utility.)

Patrick Hamilton: But the Horcrux has to be pierced/destroyed by specific things. Hermione mentions in DH that Horcruxes are notoriously difficult to destroy; only certain things--such as the sword or basilisk venom--destroy them. So the other wounds Harry received wouldn't do anything to the Horcrux since they weren't--as far as we know--from one of these specific methods or objects.
Luigi Novi: Again, that's for inanimate objects. When it's a living being, it would seem that it merely has to die. Remember, the seventh horcrux residing in Harry was destroyed when Voldemort used the Killing Curse on Harry, and that was enough to do the trick.

Jocelyn: The epilogue said that Teddy Lupin was there to see Victorie off - there was no mention of him getting on the train.
Luigi Novi: I reread it, and saw that, thanks.

Jocelyn: This didn't surprise me at all. She has a history of keeping things to herself unless she is absolutely sure about them - remember CoS? She figured out the Basilisk, why Harry could hear the voice but no one else could (parseltongue), but had to check in the library to make sure she was right before telling Ron & Harry.
Luigi Novi: She didn't indicate that she wasn't "sure" about Fiendfyre, but that she would not consider using it because it was too dangerous; She did not reveal the truth of the Basilisk in CoS only because the Basilisk attacked her right before she was about to do so. The analogy isn't there, and any case, I'm making an external reference, not an internal one, because my emphasis wasn't on Hermione's mere mention of it, but Rowling's. Rowling should've mentioned it earlier so it didn't seem like pulling a rabbit out of a hat at the last minute. Establishing premises that are used solely to resolve a major crisis only at the eleventh hour in a story is usually a sign to me of bad writing. Rowling usually makes sure to set such stuff up earlier.

Trek Barnes: Having come to the end of the story, I think PoA is still my favorite book.
Luigi Novi: For me, PoA is one of the weakest, second in weakness only to OotP, because of its utterly preposterous use of time travel. These time turners are obviously dangerous, given what they can do, and do they ever use them to stop Voldemort? Nah. But let's entrust it entirely to some thirteen-year-old kid so she can do more schoolwork.

My only question to JK is "What next?" I hope (apart from the Potterpedia) that this isn't the end of her writing career. If she can continue to write books that simply demand that you read them, then I know I'll be lining up for her next project no matter what it may be.

I do, however, hope that she might continue to set stories in this world she's created. I'd love to see a story in which Fred and George are the main characters.(Although this would, now obviously have to be set prior to or during the events of Book 7.)

From Conversations with J.K. Rowling (2000; Scholastic), Page 55-56:

Interviewer Lindsey Fraser: What will you do once you've finished the seventh?

Rowling: I'm sure I'll always write, at least until I lose my marbles. I'm very, very lucky. Because of Harry's success, I don't need to do it financially, nobody's making me. I just need to do it for myself. Sometimes I think I'm temperamentally suited to being a moderately successful writer, with the focus of the attention on the books rather than on me. It was wonderful enough just to be published. The greatest reward is the enthusiasm of the readers.

My brother and I had bets going about who would die: I said Harry, Voldemort, Snape, and maybe Hagrid. He said Harry would marry Hermione... cuz the hero gets the girl. I just KNEW Neville would turn out lion-hearted. I thought Dumbledore would be faking his death (totally forgot about the paintings. Awesome touch!) I also never doubted Snape was a good guy, but I had no idea he was motivated by love--that was so sweet! And EW pointed out that the last thing Snape wanted to see was Lily's eyes, so he asked Harry to look at him. That just melted my heart.

I thought the middle (they were in the woods...in the woods..in the woods...in the woods) was boring as dogshit, but I got it. How would three kids know what to do? They couldn't ask anyone, and they're not clairvoyant. I just think it didn't have to go on so long...it seemed to be artifically stretched to cover the whole school year. And I was waiting for Moody to pop up as an inferi.

But, here's the thing: I thought that Harry dying and getting to 'choose' to come back when no one else could was the biggest crock I have read in years. Deux ex machina, anyone? But I'll be glad to have anyone explain it to me...please?

And the last chapter was extraneous, I felt. I have no problem with Harry marrying and having kids, since everyone knows that takes more determination and strength than supposed derring-do. I just think, like a lot of others, it was ill-fitting. It's nice to hear what they did for a living, so to everyone who posted that, thanks!

Oh, and Victoire: I thought she was Ron and Hermione's oldest daughter, named for Viktor Krum. Was she? Or Bill and Fleur's?

"I thought that Harry dying and getting to 'choose' to come back when no one else could was the biggest crock I have read in years. Deux ex machina, anyone? But I'll be glad to have anyone explain it to me...please?"

I read it as a "near death experience".

Megan

On English house numbers, they vary on whether they run concuurently, or even and odd on other sides. They are mostly the latter but the other is not that unuusual particularly in older streets.

Sa,

As to how Harry coming back to life its telegraphed in Goblet of Fire, when Voldemort use's Harry's blood as part of the basis of his new body, Dumbledore even mentions it. He does this to bypass the protection Lilly's sacrifice had given Harry as it seems to be based in the blood, because he is safe at hus aunt's house who is a blood relation. When Harry is killed the fact that his blood and that spell still exists hold Harry into life. So groundwork was laid earlier in the books for that.

Victoire definitly Bill and Fleur's daughter, Victoire is the french version of Victoria.

Luigi Novi: For me, PoA is one of the weakest, second in weakness only to OotP, because of its utterly preposterous use of time travel. These time turners are obviously dangerous, given what they can do, and do they ever use them to stop Voldemort? Nah. But let's entrust it entirely to some thirteen-year-old kid so she can do more schoolwork.

Something I thought of in reading your comment: since time turners are dangerous, wouldn't it be safer to use them for something small--like say Hermione getting to classes--rather than for something big? After all, it's not like Hermione going to classes at the same time is likely to unravel their world, but going back in time to stop Voldemort might.

I agree that the movie will be really long, given that there are no side plots or secondary stories filling pages. How much can they cut?

I agree that the movie will be really long, given that there are no side plots or secondary stories filling pages. How much can they cut?

I’ve been wondering that myself. The most efficient way to trim down the screenplay for an adaptation of HARRY POTTER AND THE DEATHLY HALLOWS would be to cut out the plotline of the Deathly Hallows, somewhat defeating the purpose. (Or you can go ahead and do that and rename the last film, perhaps using the title Rowling almost used, whatever that was.)

PAD, as someone who’d be familiar with this sort of thing, I’m curious what your take is on the difficulty of making this screenplay work.

I imagine this film will have to be close to the 3 hour mark to do it minimal justice.

Well, for a start, I imagine the noodling around in the wilderness will be cut down to a minimum...(Probably enough to get in the stuff with Kreacher and the bit with the sword, which are the most important for the main plot.) Ron's departure will probably be cut entirely. I wonder what they'll do with Dobby, since his scenes have been cut from movies 4 and 5 (his role in the plot being handed to Neville in both cases, which wouldn't work here).

Patrick Hamilton: Something I thought of in reading your comment: since time turners are dangerous, wouldn't it be safer to use them for something small--like say Hermione getting to classes--rather than for something big? After all, it's not like Hermione going to classes at the same time is likely to unravel their world...
Luigi Novi: Never heard of the Butterfly Effect, Patrick? :-)

Thought the book was very well done -- a satisfying ending to the series.
My main concern is for poor little Albus Potter going into Slytherin. Afraid he's fated to it. Albus Severus Potter, A.S.P. An asp. With initials like that, he has to be a Slytherin.
(Sorry. I'll let myself out....)

Luigi Novi: Never heard of the Butterfly Effect, Patrick? :-)

In all seriousness (well, as serious as the topic deserves, anyway) I get the impression that the timestream in the Potterverse either has a robust error-correcting mechanism, or is one of those "you can't actually change history because it already happened that way and so you're fated to do whatever you planned on doing" worlds (a la Heinlein's "By His Bootstraps"). The former from Hermione's comments about how wizards who meet themselves often wind up killing themselves without realizing it; the latter because Harry and Hermione didn't change anything that we'd previously seen onscreen.

I'm with Doug. The butterfly effect isn't some law of the universe that has to be acknowledged, it's a time travel convention that many stories do without (Fritz Leiber's Timewar stories assume the timestream resists even small changes).
I think the movie could trim a lot of the wandering around.
One thing I did like is that Draco never really redeems himself, he just stops short of going further to the dark side. Ultimately he's a weasel and remains one.

I would imagine the best way to approach the 7th movie would be to add some of the plot onto the 6th movie (which, although the book was incredibly long, had a lot of material that could be potentially cut out)... although that might give the movie quite a different flow. If I were writing it that's how I'd manage, though.

"Jasmine Loucks at July 31, 2007 08:14 PM "
What about a "mini-series"? Spread books 6&7 over three (slightly shorter) movies rather than 2 longer ones?

Megan

[i]Ron's departure will probably be cut entirely. I wonder what they'll do with Dobby, since his scenes have been cut from movies 4 and 5 (his role in the plot being handed to Neville in both cases, which wouldn't work here).[/i]

They better not cut his departure and return. It's a core emotional moment, and leads to the more powerful impact of the kiss later on. Plus the destruction of the locket is a big moment.

As much as the movi and book is called harry potter it's about the three of them they need the neccesary moments, for these characters.

I think they may be willing to let the 7th movie hit the three hour mark.

They may reduce some of the ministry stuff and some of the travelling in the tent. We may lose the wedding, though.

But, here's the thing: I thought that Harry dying and getting to 'choose' to come back when no one else could was the biggest crock I have read in years.

The way I read it is, at that point in time he used the Hallows, the 'power over death'.
- inheritor of the Invisibility cloak.
- inheritor of the Stone.
- the true 'owner' of the Elder wand, via Malfoy.
While he wasn't holding all three items at the time of the curse, he was in near proximity and their "rightful owner", thus could reap the benefit.

This is a bit off topic, but it seemed the best place to share it. I had an odd moment this morning. I wanted to revisit Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince, (which btw plays a lot differently when you're fully aware of what Snape's motives are.)so I was listening to the audiobook in the car this morning. Parts of the opening chapter describe the unexplained collapsing of a relatively new bridge, so imagine my surprise when I got to work and started seeing news reports of the same thing happening in Minneapolis. Weird.

Having finally finished it, the only thing I really found to be a let down was the way the final battle between Harry and Voldemort went down. It was so quick it didn't really register that V was dead for at least a line or two after he was dead. I just thought that there would be more to it.

Other then that, good ending for the series.

For street names in England (I live here) if there is houses only on one side they go 1,2,3,4....
If there is houses on both sides it goes 1,3,5,7,9.... 2,4,6,8 on each side of the road.
Great book, but im still wondering how Neville got the sword, who sent the sorting hat out of the castle?

I missed it at first too Eevee, but when Voldemorte pulled the sorting hat over Neville's head and set it ablaze, when the hat was removed, Neville pulled the sowrd from it (page 732 or so), which means there is probably one really pissed off goblin wondering where his sword went....

I would imagine the best way to approach the 7th movie would be to add some of the plot onto the 6th movie (which, although the book was incredibly long, had a lot of material that could be potentially cut out)... although that might give the movie quite a different flow.

I agree that'd probably be the way to go--similar to how the Peter Jackson LOTR movies moved some of the material from Two Towers the book into other films--but since filming of Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince is supposed to start imminently, I'd imagine they'd have the screenplay completed by now. Not that that means there couldn't be many revisions and tweaks up to and even during production, but I guess I wonder just how practical it'd be to move some of Deathly Hallows plot into the Half-Blood Prince movie...

"PAD, as someone who’d be familiar with this sort of thing, I’m curious what your take is on the difficulty of making this screenplay work."

The wedding's going to go away. The entire sequence with Ron leaving and then coming back can vanish. You can probably lose the sequence with Luna's dad. Believe it or not, you might be able to drop the entire assault on Gringotts with some careful reworking.

PAD

But if you take out the Ron leaving and coming back, then the effect of Dumbledore's passing of the Deluminator to him is pretty much washed out as well, isn't it?

"But if you take out the Ron leaving and coming back, then the effect of Dumbledore's passing of the Deluminator to him is pretty much washed out as well, isn't it."

Yes. And I've no problem with that.

When you're whittling something like this down to a movie, you have to figure out what the spine of the story is and ruthlessly eliminate or rework anything that doesn't drive the plot toward its resolution. In this instance, it's "Harry vs. Voldemort to the Death." You either find another use for Dumbledore's gift or drop it from the movie completely.

PAD

But if you take out the Ron leaving and coming back, then the effect of Dumbledore's passing of the Deluminator to him is pretty much washed out as well, isn't it?

Well, yeah. But if you're looking to cut things, you gotta cut things. And you couldprobably get rid of Dumbledore's bequests to Ron and even Hermione in the interest of trimming the book down for the movie. (The fact that Ron's gets the deluminator isn't a vital plot point and is less so if you're already planning to trim back the Ron-leaves-but-returns thing. And the fact that Hermione gets the book of fairy tales isn't a huge either, provided that you can find some other way to do the exposition involving the story of the Hallows...)

Hmmm. My gut feeling is that Peter is right about what they will end up cutting except I can't imagine them deleting the blind dragon and the flight to freedom.

So when do you think it will be announced that they will be doing miniseries of all the books. I say within ten years of the last movie. Perhaps, within five. This would explain why Rowling as been content to let them delete so much of her books.

The problem with cutting out the ron leaving and coming back storyline is, the the Ron Hermione subplot has been building in not just the books but the movies as well. There needs to be a resolution. Plus the Ron destroying the Horcrux scenes is just so powerful it's going to be hard to cut.

JK really made things difficult for the 7th film, she added the Hallows which is a huge bit of exposition to deal with, plus you have two major character relevations.

That's the thing that's going to make half blood prince so interesting is there's not a lot of plot in this book, it's pretty much about the relationships.

The problem with cutting out the ron leaving and coming back storyline is, the the Ron Hermione subplot has been building in not just the books but the movies as well. There needs to be a resolution. Plus the Ron destroying the Horcrux scenes is just so powerful it's going to be hard to cut.

Well, you could still have Ron-destroying-the-Horcrux scene, just without him having necessarily abandoned the others and returning to them. And you could certainly find a way to "resolve" the Ron/Hermione relationship elsewhere in the film version. They could share a moment during the battle of Hogwarts, or at another time during the action, which would still serve the characters' development but not necessarily need the Ron-abandons-them-then-comes-back thing.

Just mathematically, the obvious way to cut down the story for a film would be to reduce the number of Horcruxes. As a bibliophile purist, I'd hate to think they'd do something so drastic, but on the other hand, like PAD says, the Gringotts caper could probably removed, and it's not as if the Hufflepuff Cup is as an intrinsically interesting a prop as some of the others. (Heck, even in the book it was destroyed "off-stage") On the other hand, the Gringotts scene is a great set piece, but maybe the last film will have enough great set pieces that we won't miss it...

Well, you could still have Ron-destroying-the-Horcrux scene, just without him having necessarily abandoned the others and returning to them.

Or you can cut it down to the bare minimum necessary to make it work--Ron storms off in a huff, Harry goes off by himself and sees the sword, Ron returns to save him and destroy the Horcrux. All the key points, both plot and emotional, are there without the extra month after step one.

"Just mathematically, the obvious way to cut down the story for a film would be to reduce the number of Horcruxes. As a bibliophile purist, I'd hate to think they'd do something so drastic"

you could but then you take away the whole magic number of 7 thing still do able. They might cut the hufflepuff cup for no other reason then it cuts the scene from HBP absolutely destroys some of the motivation and symbology.

Well lets look at the major bits, you could remove the ministry of magic bit just have mundungus keep the locket, though that removes a nice set piece early on.

You can combine malfoy manor and gringotts really

my big worry over the ron destroying the locket stuff is kloves has a history of taking stuff from ron and giving it to other characters.

I'm not sure how you can remove luna's dad. that's the explanation of the Deathly Hallows and unless you change the title of the movie they have to be there somehow.

I think Deathly hallows is going to be a 3 hour movie.

I'm not sure how you can remove luna's dad. that's the explanation of the Deathly Hallows and unless you change the title of the movie they have to be there somehow.

Well, if you cut Luna's father, then obviously, you'd have to find some other way to do the exposition involving the Hallows, but that's not impossible. Maybe the book Hermione inherits from Dumbledore provides the fuller story of the Hallows (if you keep that part of ths book in the film.) Maybe some other member of the Order provides the Hallows backstory at some point.

The point is that there's surely any number of ways to cut down this--or any other--book in order to make it a movie.

Come to think of it, what I find interesting are all the elements from earlier Harry Potter books that weren't included in the respective movies that nonetheless turn up as somewhat important elements in Hallows--things like Sirius's two-way mirror that plays a part in Hallows. Obviously, you can write around anything, but it's interesting to think of all the things like that that the filmmakers will have to write around...

I think for the movie they should definitely ditch the final "Nineteen Years Later" chapter. I didn't mind it in the book, even though it was a tad cutey-poo (even if it did set up more books/fan fic). I thought it ended much stronger on "I've had enough trouble to last me a lifetime," with Harry's final conversation with Dumbledore's painting.

While its simply a somewhat weak way to end the book, but still okay, I think in a movie the sequence would be pure death. Basically, by this point, the audience has spent seven movies and gawd-knows how many years with these actors who play Harry, Ron, Herminoine, etc. So they would pull the rug out from under us and say, "hey, you get to go home after all these movies with some 30 year old actors instead of the people you've watched for all these hours. Enjoy!"

If they want to put the 19 yrs later scene in the flick, do it as a post-credits cookie.

Does anyone else want to see a "Neville Longbottom and the Really Bad Year at School"?

For the movies, they don't have to reduce the number of horcruxes. They could just say that Dumbledore had already destroyed some of them (I see the cup being the first to go and either Nagini or the diadem going if the director wants.)

Is anyone else hopping that RTD directs a Harry Potter movie? And speaking of the Doctor, Tennant's character's soul wasn't removed in the movie, right? Maybe the Doctor could have a cameo in the last film.

i think whatever they cut from this book is going to hurt more then any other book.

Can you cut Neville killing the snake? yes. Does it absolutely destroy the amazing character arc she's built for him since book 1? yes.

Could you cut the lovegood scene? yeah kills the absolutely heart breaking moment of seeing Luna's ceiling.

I know this whatever they cut from the ron hermione subplot they best be careful. they've been building that plot in the movies not just the book and if they kill the pay off you'll piss off a very large part of the fanbase.

Oh, and Peter, when I read the part where he was naked, I started saying "Ek- Ek-"!