Overall, I liked it a hëll of a lot.
I’ve given it some thought and decided that I won’t go into detail. I will simply say that I think Rowling pulled it off. Yes, to some degree it was “Harry Potter and the Deathly Exposition,” but she had a lot of ground to cover and loose ends to tie off. She accomplished a hëll of a feat.
And the only vaguely spoilerish thing I’ll mention is this: At one point Harry, having been rendered insensate, comes around, and we have the following sentence:
“Almost as soon as he had reached this conclusion, Harry became conscious that he was naked.”
Am I the only one who, upon reading this, immediately jumped to the conclusion that in a burst of metafiction, Harry was going to discover that he was on stage in a production of “Equus?”
PAD
• 
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 áršëhølëš? 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 hëll 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 hëll 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 dámņ 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 áššhølë 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