Deathly Hallows / OOTP Movie Discussion

At midnight on Friday Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows was released, ending the ten year run of J.K. Rowling's extremely popular book series. I imagine that there are a few folks here who have already read the book and want to talk about it. Likewise, the movie version of Order of the Phoenix was recently released (a film I was kind of underwhelmed by). So ... what did you think of them? Be forewarned: I imagine the comments will be filled with spoilers.

Spoiler Alert!!!!!

Milk left at room temperature goes bad on page 298.

Re:What?

Yes, you do. If all you potterheads went back and re-read the books, over and over again, the rest of us could get on with more important things, like having a row over GPL2 vs GPL3 and emacs vs. vi.

Re:What's this "my" Sweet Pea?

He has a 6-digit UID. That 8-digit number you were looking at is the post number, old man.

What did I think of them?

I thought it was nice that something, even if it was something that I thought was junk, could get kids reading for five minutes.

Now, if only we could find a way to make them read books like 1984, Brave New World, Catch 22 and Fahrenheit 451...

Re:What did I think of them?

It's called school.

Re:What did I think of them?

Rowling doesn't have a purpose

What does the writer mean when he writes this class? .. No. .. No. .. *sigh* No.

The writer is commenting on Rowling's nihilistic perspective on the neopaganist movement.

The theory he puts forward in this sentence is that as a women she feels betrayed by the misogynistic class structure, and that neopaganism reinforces true classlessness. You see, in the wizard school those most proficient in magic rise to the top, not those born into a higher class. The writer postulates that Rowling is encouraging such a meritocracy.

... except to tell a story people want to hear.

In this sentence he follows on by noting that she is telling the public what they want to hear. When people read Harry Potter they see through the eyes of someone talented but downtrodden. The story of Harry's rise to the top is an inflection of the American Dream, but with friendship and knowledge in place of money.
The supposed naivety of the dream is amplified through the eyes of the protagonist, Harry.

I hope you all memorized what I just said, because you'll have to repeat it in your own words ad verbatim in the exam. You'll also have to be able to recite it while being monitored by a lie detector so we know that you really believe it. Class dismissed.

Re:What did I think of them?

If I had to give a simple explanation, I'd say that JK Rowling isn't as good a writer as CS Lewis, which is why I find myself appreciating the latter but not the former.

Hmmm. Surely a more simple explanation is that CS Lewis is more to your taste than JK Rowling? The quality of writing isn't a one dimensional thing.

Should have renamed the film something else...

...as it barely mentioned the Order of the Phoenix.

The latest film has the same problem as all the other Harry Potter films:

They focus only on the epic tale of Harry versus Voldemort and not on the far more epic story of Harry's emotional journey to be ABLE to face (and presumably) defeat Voldemort.

If you see the film with someone who has never read the books, they tend not to care one iota bout any of it and the reason is all to clear: the characters never develop. They never change. They never become who they need to be in order to confront the horrible evil that is taking over their world.

The books are amazing because, while there is an epic story of good versus evil, the reader is brought along for the ride to grow alongside the main character. But the movies watch the action from a safe distance and only really focus on the parts that have action.

Re:Should have renamed the film something else...

The latest film has the same problem as all the other Harry Potter films

The film suffers the same problem that all books over 300pages suffer. That is that the book to movie conversion runs at roughly 150 pages per hour. Any book running over 300 pages is going to suffer at the hands of bonehead editors and the such.

Re:Should have renamed the film something else...

Unless it's a Tolkein book, in which case your art director can look at it as a finely detailed set of instructions on building a scene.

Luckily...

Deathly Hallows fortunately played down the anti-intellectualism of the previous books. Harry admitted he should be able to heal wounds by magic (but still didn't admit any fault of his own for not knowing), Hermione's wide knowledge proved very useful on their little trek, and even Ron decided he should look cool in front of the kids at Hogwarts by spouting off a random fact he'd heard from Hermione. That was good, I liked that.

My opinion

I think spelling the title of the book correctly shouldn't be too much to ask.

JRR Tolkien comparison

I know this might prove controversial, but I have always compared Potter to Rings.

In the way they are both multi-volume, long, rambling engaging fantasy stories which good stuff to read, but in a terrible writing style

Don't get me wrong, I *am* a fan and have all of them - but neither are great well written works of prose.

Whats the betting she'll revisit the muggle/wizarding world in a couple of years? There is waaay too much money available not to in my humble opinion, its just too tempting a cash cow now.

Not a Tolkien fanboy, but...

...comparing the two is pretty insulting to Professor Tolkien. It's true that they are both fantasy, both popular, and both compelling in their way (I happen to have enjoyed both series despite their flaws), but the similarities end there.

J.R.R. Tolkien more or less invented high fantasy as we know it, bringing the folk tales and fables of Europe into the realm of literature. The breadth and depth of the world he created to this day exceeds just about everything else out there. Whether you love the depth or find it boring, you cannot deny that the work Tolkien put into Middle Earth eclipses Rowling's middle-grade novels.

It would be silly to make a blanket statement that one is "better" then the other; tastes differ, and as you pointed out, neither are exactly stylistic masterpieces. But Tolkien's work was groundbreaking, in many ways the first of its kind. Rowling caught the wave of popular opinion and surfed it to fame and riches; her books do not represent anything out of the ordinary for the genre (fantasy) or the audience (middle-grade). They're entertaining works, but they only live in the house that Tolkien (and some of his contemporaries) built.

Re:Not a Tolkien fanboy, but...

J.R.R. Tolkien more or less invented high fantasy as we know it

I understand that you like Tolkien but I suggest you take a look at literary history before you make such a claim.

Epic fantasy/mythology - take a look at the ancient greeks for early work. Ever heard of Homer's Odyssey?
C.S. Lewis also often gets compared to Tolkien though I'd call his books lighter reading and the Christian metaphors are a little bit annoying.

Invented languages? Here's a list
http://www.lib.umt.edu/guide/lang/artifph.htm [umt.edu]

By the way I love neither the Harry Potter books nor Lord of the Rings nor Homer's works. All eventually put me to sleep with the rich detail. (I don't enjoy multi-page descriptions of things I'm afraid).

Re:Not a Tolkien fanboy, but...

Rowling caught the wave of popular opinion and surfed it to fame and riches; her books do not represent anything out of the ordinary for the genre (fantasy) or the audience (middle-grade). They're entertaining works, but they only live in the house that Tolkien (and some of his contemporaries) built.

The female is all but non-existent in Tolkien's world.

There is a kind of abhorrence that a woman might be compelled to directly engage the evil which surrounds her.

Tolkien ideal is the structured pre-industrial - pre-war - society of rural England.

Rowling's world is as ramshackle, crowded and intensely vital as Dicken's London - or more properly the England that would emerge from the Blitz.

I'm pretty happy with it

First off, I'm just going to assume everybody who clicks into this thread has read the book, because otherwise half the thread is going to require spoiler warnings.

Rowling's style of writing is definitely not where her strenghts lie, and everybody I know who has refused to read Harry Potter has used this as a reason. However, I think people who say this are cutting off their nose to spite their face. What she lacks in writing skill, she more than makes up for in enjoyable, well crafted characters, and amazing plot. Deathly Hallows is by far my favourite of the series (7, 5, 4, 6, 2, 1 - fot those who are interested).

I was pretty sure that Snape was on the side of good before I started reading, but by the time he was made Headmaster, I had actually figured that I had been mistaken, and was wondering how she was going to have a decent ending with him as a bad guy. The last few chapters were magnificently brought together, with payoff after payoff after payoff.

The only disappointment in terms of plot, I felt, was that not a single Slytherin stayed behind after the evacuation of the school. I know, they are supposed to be cunning and self serving, but Harry was almost put into their house. Surely there must be a handful of Slytherins who, like him, are borderline and would have enough bravery to stand beside their schoolmates against the deatheaters.

However, that aside, I am very happy with the book, and am glad to see I didn't waste my time on a series just to have it thrown in my face at the end (*cough* Dark Tower *cough* Wheel of time).

Re:I'm pretty happy with it

(7, 5, 4, 6, 2, 1 - fot those who are interested)

So...did you really hate #3 or what?

Re:I'm pretty happy with it

The only disappointment in terms of plot, I felt, was that not a single Slytherin stayed behind after the evacuation of the school. I know, they are supposed to be cunning and self serving, but Harry was almost put into their house. Surely there must be a handful of Slytherins who, like him, are borderline and would have enough bravery to stand beside their schoolmates against the deatheaters.

Let's compare the wizards to the Jedi. Now in both universes you have good guys and nasty nasties. The Jedi approach is to make a blanket condemnation against anything that even smells slightly evil, in fact condemning things that could become evil if taken too far. So no families, no sex, no joy. Divorce yourself from emotions and their entanglements lest you turn to the dark side. In other words, the Jedi are pretty hardcore about avoiding evil.

In the Potterverse, on the other hand, you not only have an acceptance of dark magic in the world, there is even a house of evil inside the school. Now the way things are portrayed, there isn't a case of good sylthers and bad ones, you don't really see that for the other houses, either. Pretty much every slther is a baddie and you don't hear of anyone from the other houses going bad. So the question is, why the hell are these people tolerated? There are even black magic shops in the shopping district. Not illicit underground dens that are in constant threat from the law but places of business that are allowed if looked down upon, like a regular porn shop. Huh? Black magic isn't the sort of thing that prudes look down upon that can be used for good or evil like alcohol, firearms, or porn. In fact, let's stick with the firearms angle. Bad guys carry guns but so do cops. They're dangerous, dangerous technology but the gun itself is not good or evil, only the person using it. But black magic is inherently evil and corrupting and the tools used in working it tend to involve dastardly sacrifices. In this universe, there is no demonstrated use for black magic that is benign or useful. It isn't like white magic is used for healing and construction and black magic is used by good AND evil people for defense, a tool that can be used or abused.

So, given that premise, why is black magic so tolerated?

Spoilers within

To steal from Joel McHale, who would have thought Hermione was a dude? I certainly didn't see it coming!

My thoughts (no spoilers)

I enjoyed OOTP. The book is overly long and probably the weakest of the series, but what I find most interesting in the films is watching Daniel Radcliffe et al growing into their roles. OOTP is an incredibly long book and, like all the movies, it's like reading the book in fast forward. The book's better than the film, but it was still very very good.

I finished Deathly Hallows this morning after spending all of yesterday ploughing through it.

And I really, really loved it.

JK Rowling has been very clever with the books and I don't know if the entire series has been foreshadowed, but throughout the final book she drops little hints that I, if I had actually been paying very close attention to, would have figured out before the climax.

You can scoff all you want that it's a kids book and you'd rather die than read it and if this is the case, then I pity you. I felt exactly the same way until I tried them, and it's very rare that a book can make me laugh while I'm reading it.

Now that it's all over I feel very sad that there might never be another author in my lifetime who can create characters that fit together so well.

Answers, I think...

If Snape could enter Grimmauld Place, then why didn't he told the Death Eaters where it was? Voldemort should be aware that wherever the Headquarter of the Order was, Snape knew it, and with Dumbledore's death Snape would become a secret keeper.

Isn't it obvious? Snape wasn't working for the Death Eaters, he was working for the Order and Dumbledore. This was a major plot of the book. I really do not understand why you are confused about this.

Not really a mistake but... how did Griffyndorf's sword got away from the goblins?

This was hinted to in the book in that Gryffindor's sword can only remain in the possession of one who's valor and need of the sword are true. One cannot simply possess the sword out of greed, which is how the goblin Griphook acquired it.

How could Dumbledore best Grindenwald if the latter had the Elder Wand? also, how did he not defeat Voldemort completely with the Elder Wand when they dueled?

Again, the answer was hinted at in the book if not a running theme throughout the series. Dumbledore admits to Harry that they were both skilled wizards, but that Dumbledore was perhaps a bit more skillful. That fact, taken together with the theme that runs throughout the books that it is not what skills or magical items you possess so much as what you do with them that is the key. I think that is your answer.

How did Dumbledore's painting know of the plan to take Harry off Private Drive, in order to counsel Snape?

I suspect someone in the Order other than Snape is in communication with the painting.

Re:Plot mistakes? (spoilers)

It is Harry Potter. You are not supposed to think about it, just enjoy it.

If you start to think about it, you might come up with questions like:

* Why didn't they keep using the time turner thing to go back in time to save people?

* Why didn't the bad guys use the same?

* Sure luck potion takes 6 months to make, but surely someone could have gone to a bit of effort? They spent a lot of time sitting around doing nothing...

Re:Plot mistakes? (spoilers)

I noticed the plethora of continuity errors, and have rewritten the book to fix them [blogspot.com]. For example:

Hermione: We knew we needed something to destroy the Horcruxes, and then Ron remembered there's a dead basilisk in the Chamber of Secrets, so we went to get some of its teeth. Harry: Neither of you speak parseltongue. Ron: No, but I've heard you do it, so I imitated the sounds you made to the sink in Moaning Myrtle's bathroom. Harry: And it worked? That makes no sense. And how did you get out? Last time we had to use Fawkes to carry us. And wasn't the tunnel caved-in? Ron: Look, mate, there are only about 125 pages left. Do you really want to spend twenty of them helping us get into the Chamber and extract teeth? Just let it go and pretend it makes sense.

I was mostly dissapointed in the book..

Maybe it's that I read waaaay too much speculation about it, all with interesting theories on how Harry would defeat Voldemort without having to introduce trick wands.... but I just felt that she took the easiest possible route out of the story, giving characters dramatic about-faces when necessary. I mean... Kreacher suddenly becoming Harry's biggest fan? Cop out. Percy's sudden change of allegiance, apology and starting to joke? Excuse me?

I also felt that she let Dumbledore off the hook, and his character would have been much more compelling if he had killed his sister (or something similar)... or maybe, just maybe, we didn't have to have Dumbledore re-appear and explain everything? I mean come on. Add to that most of the deaths just didn't make sense. Except for Mad-Eye (and possibly Dobby), basically all the other major deaths were random, they had no purpose in the story and didn't advance the plot in any major way. The only sacrificial death was Harry, and he didn't even die (and don't get me started on the overly sappy epilogue).

Generally, I think the book was missing most of JKR's trademark wit, that made the rest of the story so enjoyable... and had too much of her maddening 'hand of god' habit of introducing new magical concepts to get the characters out of sticky situations instead of them having to figure a way out themselves.

Re:I was mostly dissapointed in the book..

just didn't make sense. Except for Mad-Eye (and possibly Dobby), basically all the other major deaths were random, they had no purpose in the story and didn't advance the plot in any major way.

That is actually a very realistic bit of storytelling that is usually avoided by most authors because they would see it as waste or bad drama. Imagine if Emperor Palpatine choked on an olive in his martini a few days before Endor. Could you imagine the Rebels arriving and the Imperials all like "Um, sorry guys, I know you were looking for a fight but the Big Guy's gone and we're scratching our heads trying to figure out what to do." But that is a realistic possibility. Imagine Leia leaving for a routine diplomatic trip and her shuttle going down due to a mechanical failure, killing all on board? Luke might only find out about it days later. And when you're talking about a big honking firefight, not everybody gets to do a slow-mo running dive at a hand grenade to save the platoon, share touching words with their bitter rivals, etc. Nope. One minute they're alive, the next their brains are in someone's lap and everybody is yelling WTF over the shellfire.

Doing a death like this, avoiding the temptation to milk it for drama like a cow on a mechanical milker, that's cliche. Doing the opposite can be quite unexpected.

Spoiler: Voldemort is Luke's Father...

...and Hermione manages to push Voldemort out of the Hogwarts airlock and blast him with the main engines...oops, I'm mixing my non sequiturs...

All in all, the Deathly Hallows was a satisfying read. Rowling did a good job of creating the illusion of a Grand Unifying Theory of the previous books and make it seem like there was a clever thread running through them that sustained until the end. She is very good at writing herself out of the corners she paints herself into.

Re:Draco's Wand

Defeated Dumbledore.

You don't have to kill, just defeat.

Entertaining, not Enlightening

After reading the final book, my opinion on the series is still the same: they're extremely entertaining, gripping, and emotionally engaging books, but their literary depth leaves something to be desired. Don't get me wrong - I love the series, but I just wish it had some more depth than the usual good vs. evil tale.

So unbelievable

What really spoils the story is that Harry Potter dumps a hot asian girl. I mean come on, give the audience some credit. I can believe in kids whipping up spells, but dumping a hot asian girl, now that is just the realm of fantasy!

Spoilers to the Rescue

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_Potter_and_the_ Deathly_Hallows [wikipedia.org]

Spoilers for those who need them. The link does not pop because Slashdot strips out target=_blank.

The three choices

It seems to me that the climax of the entire series hinged upon three choices that Harry made in this book. They epitomize everything Rowling was trying to convey: that the choices individuals make are ultimately what determines "good"ness or "evil"ness, and they are not concrete extremes that guide actions but rather a result of choices that are made in every aspect of life.

1. He had to decide to face Voldemort willingly, accept that he is going to die, and understand that he is doing this to save his friends. Courage and selflessness are the keys to defeating the emotions that power Riddle: greed, selfishness, and fear.

2. He had to decide, after being struck with the Killing Curse, to return. Death is easy. It is the easiest thing every living organism *will* do -- life (and staying alive) is a constant struggle not to die. When in King's Cross talking to Dumbledore, he had the opportunity not to go back; he had the chance to take the easy route. Again, he had to decide to return to save his friends.

3. When finally facing Riddle, now that both were free of any sort of magic to protect themselves, he had one final choice: To take life to protect his (Avada Kedavra) or to show mercy, compassion, love, even to his gravest enemy. By choosing Expelliramus, even after being explicitly told numerous times NOT to use this particular spell, he truly sets himself apart.

couldn't read Harry Potter myself

I picked up a copy of the first Harry Potter sometime before the first movie was released - I had the idea that I was going to read the book first. Somehow I managed to scan my eyes over all the pages of text. Something about a boy and his broom. The movie had been released on DVD by that point, and I eventually rented it.

I also picked up a copy of the second book before the movie was released. I was only able to get 50 or so pages into it before I was lost. Didn't bother to rent the movie.

Tried to read Lord of the Rings: Fellowship of the Ring before the movie came out. I was lost in the first chapter.

I do alright with non-fiction books that I've an interest in, and was reading John Taylor Gatto's [johntaylorgatto.com] A Different Kind of Teacher the summer after I finished teh college, and all my reading troubles suddenly made sense. Mr. Gatto realized over the course of his 30-year teaching career that most of his 7th-graders were incapable of reading beyond the level required for a standardized test. To prove this for his readers, he suggested going to the library and borrowing a copy of the classic, All Quiet on the Western Front, read the first 20 pages, and return for a question on the text.

I went to the library, checked out the book, and scanned the first 20 pages as best I could. I saw the answer to Mr. Gatto's question, but only because I'd read the question before going to the library. But he did have a follow up question too, and I had no idea whatsoever what was going on in this particular book.

Gatto says that he found that most his students didn't 'make pictures' to go along with the words comprising book's stories. Not because they can't, but because the way reading is taught in the Feral Government's schools trains children not to make pictures, but to read for the (multiple-choice) test.

Finally - why I couldn't (and still can't) read fiction. I've been spending these last few years trying to get my mental-picture-maker working, and when I succeed someday, then I'll pick up the Harry Potter books again. Until then, I'm not going to frustrate myself with fiction anymore.

A few problems...

While the series is enjoyable overall, there were some major problems that ruined my enjoyment of the books.

Molly Weasley kills Bellatrix Lestrange.
One of the most feared duelers on Voldemort's side is killed by Molly Weasley? Sure, she's a member of the OotP, but the only spells she had shown in the previous books were household charms. It shows JK Rowling's opinion of a mother's love. But that is going too far in my opinion. Made me laugh when I read it.

Snape's patronus is a doe.
I understand that Snape loved Lily, but why does a doe represent Lily? Sure, James (secret!) animagus form was a stag, but that would imply that Snape cared about James. Lily's patronus was a doe, but why would Snape's be the same? I assume Lily's was a doe to represent James (even though a stag would make more sense), but again, that implies that Snape cared about James.

Gryffindor's sword in the Sorting Hat.
I thought that Griphook took it? If he cared so much about it, why wouldn't he protect it in some way?

The Deathly Hallows.
JK Rowling introduces some super powerful items in this book that have never been mentioned before.
The Invisibility Cloak was around since the first book, but it was never noticed that it lasted much longer than normal? I'd assume Hermione would read up on it at least.
Voldemort made the ring a Horcrux without knowing its abilities? With his quest for power, I'd assume he would have at least heard of the Deathly Hallows.
The wand? An unbeatable super weapon was introduced in the last book in order to defeat Voldemort since Harry couldn't outduel him. And the concept of a wand changing owners was introduced to make sure that Harry owned it? None of this was ever mentioned before? Come on.

The Taboo.
So the Ministry can detect when and where a certain word is said throughout the whole country? Why didn't they use it before to find out when someone used the Unforgivables? Or when someone mentioned Death Eaters? Or plenty of other ways it could have been used.

Harry not moving when Voldemort cast a Crucio on him?
I understand not screaming, since the pain can be resisted somewhat. But not even twitching?

The epilogue.
If she insisted on doing an epilogue to destroy any future books, couldn't she have at least mentioned what happened to the other characters? The Ministry? Weasely Wizarding Wheezes? It mentioned that Ted Lupin wasn't living with Harry, but where else would he live if not his godfather?

Re:A few problems...

also:

Harry not moving when Voldemort cast a Crucio on him?
I understand not screaming, since the pain can be resisted somewhat. But not even twitching?

Obviously, Harry was still semi-transparent and flickering with immunity after having cashed in a +1UP, and didn't feel the pain.

My reviews of the Book and Movie

The Book: I thought it was the best in the series, honestly. The book is so different than the first six though, but I think it's for the better. If Harry had just gone to Hogwarts and then realized in April that he hadn't yet destroyed all the Horcruxes, I would have been very disappointed. The way Rowling wrote the last book, it was very believable how hard their journey was. The trio fought, got bored, got cold, split up, adventured, almost gave up, and persevered. All very believable for a nine month journey if you ask me. And everything was wrapped up nearly perfectly. I loved the Battle of Hogwarts and the final battle, but the epilogue didn't really do "19 Years Later" justice. Obviously Harry and Ginny get together, obviously Ron and Hermione get together. They have kids, the circle completes, blah blah blah. I want to know what Harry did for 19 years? Become Minister of Magic? Become and Auror? Teach Defense Against the Dark Arts for a few years? No answer but we do learn that he has a son named Albus Severus so it's all good, right?

Anyways, the book was the perfect ending to a series many of us grew up with. I remember the first time my grandpa shows me the book and said "Hey, this is a story about a boy wizard, and they play games on broomsticks!" That was nearly 10 years ago and I remember it so fondly. Harry and me grew up together, and now his story is complete. I'm done with college now, am working in the real world. But how I still wish I was a wizard, going to school at Hogwarts, playing Quidditch, and hanging out with Harry, Ron, and Hermione.

The Movie: Order of the Phoenix is my second favorite novel in the series, after Deathly Hallows. However, the movie kind of stinks. It's more in line with the last two, thankfully, but I thought the book was so good that maybe I had such high expectations. Umbridge was the star of that book, such evil but clearly not with Voldemort. It was a great concept and I think it worked wonderfully, in the book. In the movie, however, she's just an obstacle in the hero's path and not that interesting of a character. The final scenes at the Ministry were also a let down, and differed a lot from the book. I understand that the movie series now is pretty much on it's own, but it's hard for me not to compare.

I'd rate the book a 10/10 and the movie a 6/10.

All in all, thank you J.K. Rowling for a magnificent set of novels, you are a master storyteller.

I'll probably get modded down but...

I felt the author did a poor job with the Deathly Hallows and that the book's overall quality was mediocre. First I'll start off with what she did well:
1. Snape as a hero. I doubt it was that surprising for most people, but her explanations of his motives were very plausible.
2. Dumbledore's history was intriguing.

What she did poorly:
1. Character consistency. Neville goes from almost a squib to holding his own against death eaters, where does this come from? Hermione becomes stupid. Hermione knows that there is a spell that can destroy horcruxes and _Crabbe_ of all people is capable of casting it, yet Hermione doesn't consider it worth learning as it is too "dangerous". Clearly running around without a plan and hoping a special sword drops into her lap is a much more intelligent choice.

2. Magic System still isn't explained. We have muggles, purebloods, mudbloods, halfbloods, and squibs and yet why certain people can do magic and others can't isn't even hinted at. Honestly the rules of her magic system are so poorly explained and adhocced that it can almost be considered it's own deus ex machina. Anytime someone is in a sticky situation that couldn't previously be solved, just change the rules of magic! See house-elves, wand pseudo sentience, and transfiguration limitations. I don't know about you, but I would like a magic system that is deeper than speak latin + wave wand + made_up_rule_that_conveniently_solves_plot_problem .

3. The use of house elves as deus ex machina- Oh no Harry Potter is trapped in a dungeon where apparition is impossible. Hah house-elves can teleport where wizards can't, problem solved!

4. Magical battles are _boring_. Yes boring, if you are good you spam stupefy/expelliarmus, if you are evil you spam Unforgivable Curses although mainly Avada Kedavra. Occasionally someone does something mildly clever but this is the exception even for supposedly intelligent characters! No one does anything clever like "accio testicles", or transmogrifying the ground under them to something dangerous, or even something as simple as using a high-powered lumens to blind. Instead it's cast their faction's spell over and over and over. On top of this there are niggling things such as Avada Kedavra being known as the "Unblockable Curse" yet hitting it in midair with stupefy causes it to "explode into red and green fireworks".

5. Voldemort's incompetence isn't believable. Okay so she wanted Voldemort's flaw to be his arrogance, but he isn't a moron. He knows Harry will come back to Godric's Hollow and yet lays a pathetic trap. He should have at least made it unapparatable. He doesn't exploit the mind link like he previously did to kill Sirius. He also continues to be outsmarted by a 17 year old with no plan. It is like watching a movie where the superweapon has a giant self-destruct button that the hero pushes and the villian doesn't see it coming!

6. Cliched- Harry martyrs himself and is brought back to life.

7. Predictable- Who didn't know that Harry was the last Horcrux or that Snape was a good guy, or that Harry wasn't actually dead?

8. It had the plot of a bad rpg- Find the magical item that will help you complete your quest. Now destroy the villain's enchantments. Congratulations, kill the final boss. Scroll credits.

9. Unsatisfying epilogue. Now this could potentially be cleared up in a different book but it would be nice to know what actually happened to everyone. We aren't even told what Harry did afterwards. Did he become an auror, a quidditch player, or did he do something else? All this emphasis on non-human's rights by Hermione and no mention of if wizarding politics changed. Nothing is told about the main characters other than who they reproduced with and how they named their children (also not a surprise). Honestly she may as well have said "And they lived happily ever after.", and it would have conveyed essentially the same information.

Re:I'll probably get modded down but...

I've got my own problems with her writing (in general and specifically), but your reasons don't hold much water in my eyes.

1. Character consistency. Neville goes from almost a squib to holding his own against death eaters, where does this come from?

There was a substantial build up to this in the preceding book.

Hermione becomes stupid. Hermione knows that there is a spell that can destroy horcruxes and _Crabbe_ of all people is capable of casting it, yet Hermione doesn't consider it worth learning as it is too "dangerous".

Given that it nearly kills all of them, that seems like a fair judgement call. Hermione was always characterized as more cautious after all.

2. Magic System still isn't explained.

Don't be so analytical - of course it isn't explained, there can't be a sense of wonder if you know how it's all supposed to work. And do remember that this is a children's book.

3. The use of house elves as deus ex machina- Oh no Harry Potter is trapped in a dungeon where apparition is impossible. Hah house-elves can teleport where wizards can't, problem solved!

Given that Hermione repeatedly states that nobody can apparate within the bounds of Hogwarts, yet both Dobby and Kreacher are shown doing exactly this numerous times in the earlier books, I don't think it's unreasonable to throw this "surprise" in.

4. Magical battles are _boring_.

I somewhat agree, but I have to point out that...

...On top of this there are niggling things such as Avada Kedavra being known as the "Unblockable Curse"

Is not correct to the best of my recollection. It's "unforgivable", not "unblockable". It's just supposed to be evil and illegal.

5. Voldemort's incompetence isn't believable.

He's a super-villain; they're supposed to be unbelievably incompetent. Otherwise a bunch of children/James Bond can't defeat them. But I think you know that.

6. Cliched- Harry martyrs himself and is brought back to life.

I don't like this, but for other reasons.

7. Predictable- Who didn't know that Harry was the last Horcrux or that Snape was a good guy, or that Harry wasn't actually dead?

Again, fair points, but it's a children's book. It's a book with subtleties, but the basic plot direction has to be accessible to its target audience. See your point 8 as well for this.

9. Unsatisfying epilogue.

I rather liked it. It had a nice symmetry with Harry's obsession with his parents; in the end he got to step into their shoes. And it left a lot to the imagination - that's my preference.

Honestly she may as well have said "And they lived happily ever after.", and it would have conveyed essentially the same information.

Yes. But maybe that was intentional?

I think it was an Ok book, and indeed that the rest of the books were Ok. Where people criticise them, they often seem to forget that they were written for children and were phenomenally successful.

I have a huge amount of respect and admiration for JK because she wrote some very enjoyable books, but more importantly because she wrote enjoyable books that kids would read and see their parents reading. If that isn't a good thing for literature generally, then I don't know what is.

Oh, and I get really ticked off with the professional literary critics telling us that this isn't "great literature." Maybe, maybe not. But it's never been for the critics to judge that - our descendents will decide that (with a bit of perspective) and the critics rarely have much insight into it.

International Relations

I have enjoyed reading the books and can't wait to finish the last one, but there are a few things that really bothered me.

It was all basically centred around Britain. All the wizarding history and what not. Then, in book four, all of a sudden there are other wizarding schools out there. And a few are friendly with Hogwarts. There are suddenly wizards in Egypt and China, and other areas of the world. With a whole world of wizards, why didn't any of the come to aid them in their struggle?

I know the latest book says Dumbledore didn't get a chance to travel abroad after he left school, but surely a wizard of his stature would have in later years at least communicated with and shared bonds with other great wizards from around the world. Why hadn't he formed friendships with other great wizards? Surely there would be some as skilled as he, or even more so. It just seems that Voldemort was strong enough to be a threat to the entire world. Why didn't Albus send word to other great witches and wizards, telling them he was back, and that they should form a gang to kick the snot out of him?

Just some of my thoughts after reading the first hundred pages of the last book...

Re:International Relations

I'm surprised that she didn't throw in a reference to a north american wizarding school as a nod to her large american audience. Who wouldn't want delegates from Brooklyn's own Honest Vinny's Academy of Sorcery and Automotive Repair in the triwizard tournament?

Harry Potter: the final word

When the first few books started to garner attention, there were a lot of misguided attempts to pigeonhole them in the popular media. Many compared Rowling to Roald Dahl, which is stylistically and structurally ridiculous.

But she shares one part of her formula with Dahl: the exercise of adult authority is depicted as bad, and she gives us (supernaturally) strong children who defy authority -- even well meaning authority.

The other thing she does is she marries cynicism towards authority with sentimentality about human nature. It's the same formula that makes Casablanca a classic movie. Generations have learned to square the circle of "cool" from Rick: it's cool to be cynical and alienated, but go to far and you're not on the inside, you're on the outside. It helps a lot that Casablanca is not an "art" movie, it's well crafted and aimed at the masses, which is probably appropriate.

The next element in the Rowling formula is taken from the classic English detective story. The first four books are relatively self contained and scrupulously "fair" mystery stories. Armed with the information available to the hero, you could beat him to the conclusion. The fourth book is a novel in itself, and a bridge to the second half the the epic, in which the books are longer, and rather than self-contained, are installments in a longer story arc. So I think of HP as consisting of five books: 1, 2, 3, 4 and 4+5+6+7. Each one of these works follows the rules and many of the conventions.

The final element of the Rowling formula is its borrowings from speculative fiction. Rowling does not tip her fantasy hand until volume 7. The first six books have an appeal that is taken straight from hard science fiction.

Consider: the magic in Harry Potter works consistently. It operates according to certain laws, some well known, others at the current state of knowledge suspected. People who have at least some talent can, by studying the well known laws and by practical application, extend their capabilities. The laws and their practical application are organized into discrete areas of study, which are taught in a way much like engineering. In fact it is important to remember: Newton was an alchemist. Many of the branches of study in Harry Potter are in fact historical, but obsolete sciences.

The magic in Harry Potter is depicted in a much more scientific way that FTL travel is in most science fiction. The appeal of heightened human control of nature is much the same in Harry Potter as it is in the hardest of science fiction. The only thing missing is any hint of social scientific consistency with the "technology" of magic. For example, if wizards can do magic, why are some richer than others?

There's a lot of things in Harry Potter we've seen before. But it doesn't make the works unoriginal or derivative. It's a brilliantly syncretic work, the product of a magpie like mind that collects the oddball name here, the bit of occult trivia there. They have their stylistic, and occasionally narrative faults, but they aren't something cobbled together from an easy formula any hack could reproduce.

Re:Spoiler alert

SNAPE KILLS DUMBLEDOR!

Re:Spoiler alert

They never really mentioned the fact that Griphook kind of got shafted by that. I mean he got the sword fair and square and then *poof* it just appears back in the hat when it's needed.

Re:Spoiler alert

It isn't as if the goblin tricked Harry into making the agreement under false pretenses.

Well, the goblin did assume that Harry would act in bad faith, and so made the deal planning to steal the sword and strand them in Gringotts. That sounds exactly like "false pretenses" to me.

Re:Spoiler alert

see: star trek. Or just about any "universe" based fiction whatsoever with more than one installment.

I know what happened to Luna

She is now teaching Divination at Hogwarts, and rocking Prof. Neville Longbottom's world every night.

Re:Spoiler alert

Apparently not, since Dumbledore in fact utters the exact words "You were the seventh Horcrux, Harry, the Horcrux he never meant to make."

Re:Spoiler alert

No. All along, the intention of Voldemort was to create six horcruxes (horcruci?); the seventh part of his soul was to remain in his body.

In fact, I seem to remember Harry making the same mistake and Dumbledore reminding him that they're only looking for four (not five) more horcruxes in HBP.

Re:Spoiler alert.

Ah well never mind, I've chosen not to read or watch anything related to potter because it just doesn't interest me, give me something which makes me think and I'm there.

Good for you! Now why are you in this thread, again?

Re:I haven't read SINGLE Harry Potter book

Oxygen is pretty popular amongst humans. There is in fact very broad agreement on the matter, and persuasion to "the cause" usually involves the persuadee being held under water until (s)he agrees...

Re:I haven't read SINGLE Harry Potter book

Popular taste is low taste.

Or, to put it another way, "refined taste is snooty taste. If it's popular with the masses, it can't possibly be good."

The 1400s called. They want their prejudices back.

Re:I haven't read SINGLE Harry Potter book

Shakespeare is popular. His plays were written for the people in the street, the common men and women. I think you'd be hard pressed to claim that they're not high art, that they don't hold a pretty good mirror to ourselves, even after five hundred years.

I don't make the claim that Rowling is on par with Shakespeare, but the point stands. Popularity is a completely seperate thing to quality. Confusing the two is poor thinking.

Popular taste is popular taste. Calling it low taste is elitism, pure and simple. It also fails to substitute for informed criticism.

Re:Spoiler alert.

On the other hand the Curious incident of the dog in the night, whilst also a children's book would probably appeal to most of the readers of /. being about a kid with Aspergers syndrome

Why? Are you saying that Slashdot is filled with people with Asperger's Syndrome? That's highly unlikely. There are plenty of people here who wish they had Asperger's, even going so far as to self-diagnose. The truth of the matter is that while Asperger's is real, it's nowhere near as common as internet message boards would have you believe. It is a good scapegoat for people who never learned how to interact socially with other people.

Re:You are just full of logical fallacies, aren't

So Argumentum ad populum is not a Wizarding spell like accio or expelliarmus?

Re:thinly-veiled homosexual propaganda

Dugg down for kuro5hin source.

Re:Spoiler alert

My "wrong ending" that I was giving people yesterday:

Harry and Voldemort fight a duel at Hogwarts in front of the students and faculty.
Voldemort hits Harry with a sex-change spell and Harry becomes Harriet.
The fight ends with that.
Voldemort and Harriet get married, go bowling every Friday night, and live happily ever after.

So far, noone has believed me at all.

Voldemort: "No Harry, I AM your father"

Or something like that.
 
Jolyon

Re:I haven't read SINGLE Harry Potter book

I'm just happy kids are reading. When I was about 11, I fainted as I was serving mass as an alter boy at morning mass, hit my head on the marble step and spent two nights in a hospital. I picked up a copy of "A Stone for Danny Fisher" that some alter cocher had left behind. It was a shit book, but it started me on a lifetime of reading that has served me well personally and professionally.

I just finished an excellent ghost story called "A Heart-Shaped Box" by Joe Hill. It wasn't exactly Nabokov, but it held my interest over a couple of evenings, and gave me that lovely shiver that finishing any earnest novel gives its reader.

I've talked about "first books" with others. Some started with "A Boy's Book of Baseball" and some with "The Life of Abraham Lincoln". One started with the great "Jazz Country" by Nat Hentoff (a terrific teen book about a young boy who develops a friendship with a black trumpeter and learns about being human). All of them found some tale, some words, that created a thirst that would never go away, a thirst for the stories of others. It's the way we create our own story.

No, we can argue the riches that J K Rowling has amassed or the desire of certain twisted people to keep the Potter books out of the hands of children lest their own children strive to learn a spell to make them disappear. But I'm glad that kids are reading. And maybe, just maybe some sad adult who never had that thrill of enjoyment from a tale well told will pick up Harry Potter out of curiosity and find their own undiscovered country of words.

Re:I haven't read SINGLE Harry Potter book

Ironically though, kids aren't reading. Yes, they're reading Harry Potter, but various reports on the topic of reading in the generation who have grown up with it suggest that it isn't translating that into a general interest in books (One random article on the topic grabbed from a quick look at google [sfgate.com]). I'd be very interested to see what happens in 5 or 10 years, once the craze really goes away - will there be any lasting change, or will the whole "reading" malarky vanish into the night?

Re:I haven't read SINGLE Harry Potter book

I put away childish stories at the age of 12.

Considering that you look down on a well-written story, and use the slur "gay", I think I want to nominate you for "best reason to encourage reading, EVER."

Ms. Rowling writes acceptably, and unlike far too many others managed to balance the desire for an "epic" story with one that is "fun." She didn't bother trying to mess around with any deeper commentary, and regardless of what your high-school teacher says, that's a good thing.

As to fantasy books being "childish" -- so are sports, and yet a majority of adults in the civilized world will get quite excited over at least one "professional" sport.

Re:I haven't read SINGLE Harry Potter book

She didn't bother trying to mess around with any deeper commentary

I'm sorry, but that's one of the silliest things I've read by someone who enjoys the books. She says the books are about death, but I see them as being about racism, particularly the Nazi genocide type. The Dursley's are all about child abuse (not the physical kind, but mental); there is corruption in government, huge amounts on freedom of the press, etc., etc.

One of the reason's I love the book is because of the social commentary she brings into it without ramming it down your throat.

Re:I haven't read SINGLE Harry Potter book

She didn't bother trying to mess around with any deeper commentary, and regardless of what your high-school teacher says, that's a good thing.

Spoilers:

• Think about Dumbledore's old friend, G--. Now consider Dumbledore's age, and realize that friendship would have been about 60-70 years ago. Finally, recall what was happening (in real life) in Germany about that time.
• Compare the changes in the Ministry's policies over the latter three books (note when they were written) to the (again, real life) policies of the British and American governments.

It's very gay, is it?

So what you're saying is that it has sex with other children-to-young adult-range series of fantasy and adventure books?

My goodness. What an aberration. What a sin against the will of God.

But I did read Vonnegut (Cats Cradle) in 5th Grade

It was 1963, kept the book below the desk, but I'm sure the teacher noticed. Also quite a few other SF books. We had a great library...

And you are an elitist

This, my high-horsed, elitist friend, is an article about the cumulation of a 10+ year long pop culture phenomenon, in which a series of BOOKS - BOOKS, that one must READ - have reached the heights of popularity normally reserved for much more pedestrian faire.

In this age of ever-deteriorating educational standards, dropping literacy rates, and a overall lack of mental challenges taken up by our youth, a story about jaded teenagers lining up in droves to buy a BOOK would flash right through science fiction and wind up as fantasy - if it wasn't actually TRUE.

Kids are reading, and it is cool to do so. This is a triumph beyond whatever "lack of challenge" you perceive in the writing.

And guess what? The stories are FUN. You're not getting Tolstoy, but you are getting a pretty good yarn with some deeper themes in it. Not every meal must be spinach and cod liver oil. It is OK to have the occasional ice cream.

Get over yourself and your pretentious attitudes.

DG

Re:Spoiler alert.

or Burroughs even

Yeah, I grew up on Edgar Rice - those Barsoom books made me a life long fan of reading!
Good on you - Uh, wait, you mean William don't you?

Re:Spoiler alert

I'll be 36 in October...you must not be a fan of sci-fi or fantasy books. Actually, one of the most interesting things I noticed on Friday night/Saturday morning was the huge percentage of people in line that appeared to be in the 17-20 age range.

I guess it makes sense, since most of them were between 7 and 10 when the first book came out. They've been reading the books for over half of their lives, in some cases. In the best of all possible worlds, J.K. Rowling may have inspired some future writers out there to create something as engaging as these books (or Heinlein's, Spider Robinson's, Asimov's, Saberhagen's, Piers Anthony's, Stephen King's, Harry Harrison's...)

If you think the books are stupid, that's fine. Just understand that J.K. Rowling didn't get rich because everybody thinks the books are stupid, and understand that the bookstores and wal-marts weren't full of 10-year-olds.

If you ever come across a book or better yet, a series (I highly recommend any of Spider Robinson's "Callahan" books, BTW) that draws you in and makes you wish you were a part of it, maybe you'll understand the allure here. Not everyone has that much imagination, and not everyone can stand being jeered at by people who are "better" than that, but you don't have to be a completely nutty fan to enjoy a good book.