Hi all,

Couldn't see this anywhere so I thought I'd start a thread. This is specifically for discussion of the book after reading it, so there are plot spoilers in here



























No there are, really































Okay then. I didn't think this was the best book of the seven, although I did enjoy it a lot. It started off much quicker than I thought it would do, especially the escape from the Dursleys' house. I loved it when they all took off from Privet Drive only to discover there were a big group of Death Eaters waiting for them, and they had to fight their way out. I wasn't expecting that much action early on. Voldemort being able to fly without a broom was also a nice touch.

After that was a great sense of the odds being well-stacked against them. First their came the news at the wedding that the Ministry of Magic had fallen to Voldemort, then Harry, Ron and Hermione were immediately pursued as they went to Tottenham Court Road. There was a real sense of danger at that point that the Death Eaters could follow them wherever they go.

I liked the sinister political aspect of Voldemort controlling the Ministry of Magic unseen from behind the throne, and there were obvious allegories to the Holocaust during the muggle hearings. I loved Harry snatching the Horcrux from Umbridge right under her nose in the Ministry court hearings and then still managing to escape. That was fearless.

After this though, I thought the book went quite flat in the middle. There were a series of chapters (around the time when Ron left), when they were just travelling round the country hiding themselves, in which very little happened (except the escape from Voldemort at Godric's Hollow).

The book didn't really liven up until they were captured by Greyback and taken to the Malfoy Manor. The break-in to Gringotts was another fearless ploy by Harry, and it all built up to the final showdown at Hogwarts. I loved the mental image of Harry returning to inspire the fightback, and of Pansy Parkinson shouting to hand him over to Voldemort, only for all the other three houses to protect him.

I was filling up when Percy came back, as ever since the fifth book I'd been expecting him to end up as a Death Eater. It was even more sad when Fred died. The deaths of Tonks and Lupin seemed quite gratuitous to me in plot terms, and I couldn't see how they added to the story.

The penultimate chapter when he was talking with Dumbledore was bizarre. It was like something out of Twin Peaks. I liked the image of Neville and the others still continuing to fight unafraid even after Voldemort had shown them Harry and ordered them to stop. Where did Neville get the sword of Gryffindor from though? That was the only bit in the book that I didn't understand.

The final duel was a good finish, especially with the theatrical aspect of the whole school crowding round to watch them. All in all, a good finish to the series. My favourite book was the Goblet of Fire, although after that comes the Half-Blood Prince because I thought the last 100 pages of that were brilliant.

:)

Neville got it because as Dumbledore said at Hogwarts help always comes to those who ask! ;)

The deaths didn't half stack up, eh?! I was right about Snape and I was right about Harry needing to be a sacrifice though...but I was oh so wrong about the Deathly Hallows - thought it had something to do with that arch that Sirius fell through!!!

I was a little bit disappointed....can't really pinpoint why :?

Maybe I read it too quickly!

I was very pleased about the Malfoys and how she treated them, especially the scene in the Room of Requirement - and also with the touching story of Snape! Loved that scene with Molly & Bellatrix too :D But I am still quite upset with what happened with Tonks & Lupin as I just can't see there was any need for that? :(

But I am still quite upset with what happened with Tonks & Lupin as I just can't see there was any need for that? :(
I thought that was uneccesary but important. In the epilogue it showed that their child was round at his godfathers i.e. Harry's, all the time. As everyone is aware both of Harry's parents died fighting Voldemort, both of Ted's parents died fighting Voldemort. Tonks and Lupins death showed what Harry's life could have been like if he was with someone who cared about him, like Sirius, instead of the Durshleys. That's my take on why it was in anyway.

I thought that was uneccesary but important. In the epilogue it showed that their child was round at his godfathers i.e. Harry's, all the time. As everyone is aware both of Harry's parents died fighting Voldemort, both of Ted's parents died fighting Voldemort. Tonks and Lupins death showed what Harry's life could have been like if he was with someone who cared about him, like Sirius, instead of the Durshleys. That's my take on why it was in anyway.

I can see that, but yet why did they need to be killed, especially after the spat Harry had with Lupin over him not being very happy about fatherhood. Before they were bumped off, I was thinking that their little family would be a happy one to serve as a picture of what Harry's would have been like! A bit like your take, but with them alive!

I can see that, but yet why did they need to be killed, especially after the spat Harry had with Lupin over him not being very happy about fatherhood. Before they were bumped off, I was thinking that their little family would be a happy one to serve as a picture of what Harry's would have been like! A bit like your take, but with them alive!
For the plot of the book their deaths weren't required, infact they weren't even really covered. The main thing it showed (which the HP books do show exceptionally well in my opinion) is that life isn't fair. Not everyone gets a happy ending. :(

I've just been reading around on some forums and have come across the following (quite gaping) plot hole. If Grindelwald had the Elder Wand which always ensures the holder wins duels when he duelled with Dumbeldore, how did Dumbeldore beat him to get the wand? :huh:

For the plot of the book their deaths weren't required, infact they weren't even really covered. The main thing it showed (which the HP books do show exceptionally well in my opinion) is that life isn't fair. Not everyone gets a happy ending. :(

Why them though? :( I just found that one of the most lovely bits of the book, when he runs into the cottage full of his good news and then that happens to them! That was just horrible! And what about poor Hedwig? :(

Did Crookshanks get out alive?

I've just been reading around on some forums and have come across the following (quite gaping) plot hole. If Grindelwald had the Elder Wand which always ensures the holder wins duels when he duelled with Dumbeldore, how did Dumbeldore beat him to get the wand? :huh:

Hmmm, maybe he was not the 'rightful holder'? It's that rule that means Harry wins it with his so-called rubbish (according to Lupin!) favourite spell - Expelliarmus! It was *his* anyway so he gets the goods. Was it Dumbledore's by right anyway???

Or was there something about it not being 'all that' and Dumbledore winning it because of his superior powers?

Damn, just going to have to read it all again! :D

I'm a tad dissapointed. I was hoping for a more distressing ending but overall shes tied everything up nicely

I enjoyed it more than the half-blood prince. There were a few tears when Dobby was killed off though :(

Thought it was very convenient for her to randomly kill off Hedwig as Harry would no longer need an owl as he is in hiding.

I enjoyed it, though again, it isn't my favourite book (Goblet of Fire is my fave, closely followed by Half Blood Prince). I was amazed at how soon the deaths started happening, though this did make it all more believable. I thought it was incredibly touching when Hermione was talking about the precautions she took with her parents and how they didn't even know they had a daughter - I would have liked some reference to them in the epilogue just so we knew she managed to find them and put their real memories back.

Also, I felt there were still one or two unanswered questions about the Dursleys (or maybe I just need to read it again). Such as Dumbledore's warning to Pertunia in one of the previous novels - "Remember my last" I think he said. What was her referring to? Also, I would have liked to know more about what Pertunia wrote to Hogwarts when she was little and her current attitude to it all. Plus, we never found out what happened to the Dursleys in the end.

I was punching the air when the truth about Snape came out - ever since he killed Dumbledore I had thought that it must have been all planned between them and that Snape would turn out good in the end. I was also expecting one of the Weasley twins to die as well, so I was right there.

However I was convinced that one of the main three would die. I had a huge lump in my throat when we thought Harry was going off into the forest to die and then I didn't really understand what happened when he didn't. Again maybe I just need to read it again, but why didn't he die? And the thing with Dumbledore was all a bit weird (as someone said, a bit Twin Peaks).

I have to say I found the epilogue a little too 'happily ever after'. And JKR doesn't half like marrying them off young does she?! Harry's parents were only 21 when they died, and the gang were waving off their eldest children to Hogwarts at the age of 37, which means they were all married and having kids in their early 20s too!

Can any die hard harry fans help me out? What I didnt understand was - what was the point of the deathly hallows? Did they help in the end or would the plot of worked without them? I thought Dumbledore said 'horcruxes, not hallows' - So why did he give Hermoine the book that was the clue to the hallows.

Harry killed voldemort by destroying all the horcruxes? or did he survive when vold. killed him because he had the cloak and ring? Or were the hallows there to bring his parents back to give him the courage to sacrifice himself?

Actually I'm not the most fluent reader and read it in a rush and so maybe I need to go back and do my homework!

Can any die hard harry fans help me out? What I didnt understand was - what was the point of the deathly hallows? Did they help in the end or would the plot of worked without them? I thought Dumbledore said 'horcruxes, not hallows' - So why did he give Hermoine the book that was the clue to the hallows.

Harry killed voldemort by destroying all the horcruxes? or did he survive when vold. killed him because he had the cloak and ring? Or were the hallows there to bring his parents back to give him the courage to sacrifice himself?

Actually I'm not the most fluent reader and read it in a rush and so maybe I need to go back and do my homework!

I've been thinking the exact same thing. I'm reading them all from the start again to try and get it all straight in my head.

so ron and hermiony die then

Well, it all came together well in the end didn't it?

The oft mentioned deaths on the run-up were not really a shock were they? JK had hyped it up that a major character would kick the proverbial bucket, yet the truth is far from that. Well, unless you think that Hedwig, Mad Eye, Fred, or Dobby are major characters? Or perhaps Tonks or Lupin? In fact the only semi-major character who popped his clogs was Severus Snape - but anyone who didn't expect that as part of his whole redemption arc hasn't got a clue about literature cliches.

Yup, cliche! Harry Potter was packed with them throughout the series. Nothing in the end really came as a surprise. We had the cliche of 'deceased mentor talking to the hero in a dream-like, crucial, near death moment' (see Star Wars for another use of this), as well as the redeemed villain arc. Then you have Voldermort, who never seems to hesitate in killing, suddenly hesitating at the end to let Harry explain his whole journey. On 'redemption arcs' there was also Draco's tale, and even Dudley who revealed a love for Harry that we never saw before.

Nah, all very cliche ridden - but still so much fun! You see, I could harp on critcally about the lack of structure over the series, the way in which major plot revelations come out of the blue in each book (with no explanation), and so on... but that would miss the point that they are kids books, and possibly one of the better series' of kids books around. As an adult I can just enjoy the simplicity of the story - but my kids will get a lot more from it as they grow up.

So, now it is all over, and the 'Nineteen Years Later' chapter was touching, and made me smile. A nice ending to the series, all it required would be a "they all lived happily ever after" and it would have been a perfect fairytale end.

It is good that the world is still open for her to return to again, and I'd relish the possibility of further tales in that magical world so close to our own, but in the meantime it is closed.

I've just been reading around on some forums and have come across the following (quite gaping) plot hole. If Grindelwald had the Elder Wand which always ensures the holder wins duels when he duelled with Dumbeldore, how did Dumbeldore beat him to get the wand? :huh:
This is my take on it only, I've not read any other forums. Harry defeated Draco to gain the wand by disarming him, maybe the Elder wand only works if both parties are trying to kill each other? Maybe Dumbledore disarmed Grindelwald too, knowing he couldn't kill him? At the end of DH it says something along the lines that the Elder wand won't do a killing curse on it's master, maybe the wand follows other rules too. All speculation obviously :)

When all said and done the whole series is as good as any major childrens book series in fact it could possibly be the best, its longevity will serve it well. I for one will one day read it to my grandkids and I don't doubt they will read it to theirs

I've now got hold of the audio-books to listen to (read by the magnificent Stephen Fry). Will start listening to them all once I get through the last few Dark Tower audio-books. Ideal to listen to when journeying to and from work each day.

I've been a fan of audio books for a long time as well.

Just wish the good ones weren't so flipping expensive from places like Smiths and that :(

I've now got hold of the audio-books to listen to (read by the magnificent Stephen Fry). Will start listening to them all once I get through the last few Dark Tower audio-books. Ideal to listen to when journeying to and from work each day.

We always buy the audio books to listen to in the car when we go on holiday - perfect accompaniment for long drives through France - keeps the kids quiet for hours.

As you said, Fry is magnificent.

I loved it - as much as the rest - I find it impossible to rank the books as they all have their own individual strengths.

I forced myself to read it slowly so haven't so far come up with any major questions... having read the others twice in the last 2 months, finishing HBP on Saturday probably helped too!!

Elder Wand - My take on how DD defeated the wand was that it was a wand that cannot be beaten - maybe that doesn't mean the ownder cannot be. But I also really like GazE's idea that as a deathly Hallow it protects from death so as DD was not trying to Kill Grindelwald the wand could be defeated.

Lupin and Tonks - I took this to be not only the proof that not all good people meet happy ends, but also almost a perfect ending, they died to make the world safer and happier for their son, meanwhile giving them release from a world where they couldn't be happy togethjer because of prejudice, or apart because fo the strength of their love. I found their whole relationship quite tragic.

Harry didn't die because Lord Voldemort used his blood to resurrect himself. The protection from Harry's mother is in Harry's blood, so Harry couldn't die until voldemort was dead. Voldemort only succeeded in killing his soul within Harry.

I liked this twist for 2 reasons - one, there was strong support for Harry being a Horcrux, but I couldn't see LV consciously placing his soul in a living being - would he have had the power too once the curse had failed, and why would he have done it before the failed curse if his aim was to kill Harry? Also, my feeling was that Harry is a classic literary tragic hero - as such his path is to die. However, it is in essence a kids book, and it seemed mighty unfair to him and all that loved him for him to die so young - I felt this was too tragic for the books in question. So I like that JK didn't wimp out of the tragedy - him having to accept his own imminent death and having the courage to go to it willingly and without fight (this made me sob!) but that the ancient magics conspired to allow him to live to enjoy what his courage, love and frienships have brought about.

I also loved the change in Neville - in someway I was suprised that he didn't kill Bella, in revenge, but then really his battle was always with his grandmother's view of him, and his own confidence. The fact that he came so far and gained his grnadmothers pride and personal pride was the big battle win for him i think.

I sobbed most fo the way through - and am now havng to force my self into other books before re reading them - not sure I can handle going back to reading abiout him aged 11 knowing what he has to do in a few short years time.

My only negative was that we never find out what they do for a living, did they become aurors? how did they get married, did Harry and Ron every play quirdditch together, did they get their newts. Who is headmaster now etc etc

I appreciate however that that could be another 8 chapters in an already long book, so don't blame JK for the very simple epilogue.

However I am placated by the fact that it seems highly likely she will write an encyclopaedia based on the background world she developed which is apparently verging on as indepth as Tolkein's for LOTR.

I can see so many routes where she could continue writing about our favourite characters or their offspring, but in my heart of hearts I know the risk of it drifting off into boarding school Mallory Towersesk fiction is too great and despite how sad I feel that there will never be a new Harry adventure, it is better this way.

You really think Rowling has created 'backstory' as in depth as Tolkien's? I'm not so sure she could have done - Tolkien was working obsessively and continuously on Middle-earth from around 1917 to his death - there's so much material it's not all published, and you can already get the 12 volume History of Middle Earth, Letters, Biographies etc - we must have around 200 or more books of Tolkien criticism & extra material because there is still so much to comment on. Every single new name and word he created had to have a proper history - as words in the real world do - and this opened up more and more avenues for stories so the world he made became unimaginably complex. It's been keeping me occupied for the past 24 years anyway!

If Rowling has also produced that much stuff I'd be very impressed! And I hope she does do her own encyclopedia because those David Day ones based on Tolkien's work are rubbish and filled with errors. Rowling has the advantage of youth on her side to get some of this stuff done!

I am really glad she took the last story out of Hogwarts though - it was a risk of breaking her formula of course, but we finally got to see more of the wider Wizarding world.

I have to say it was my favourite out of all the books however maybe thats because it the freshest in my mind, when i read OOTP that may go back to the top.

The deaths were really good, i imagined a lot but never thought there would be that many. When i started the chapter "Fallen Warrior" Mad Eye was the last person i thought would be dead. Saddest death was Fred, all i kept thinking was poor George. Always thought that the Twins were two characters that would always be safe. Also felt a bit sad with Dobby but at least he died in a way he would of liked, saving Harry and going against his past masters.

Two people who i started the book hating were revelations by being/turning good. First Snape, yes he turned out on Dumbledore's side, The Prince's Tale was the saddest chapter. Kreacher was the biggest shock, never thought he'd turn against the Dark Lord. Loved it in near the end were he led the house elves against the death eaters.

Im glad i spent all day saturday reading

I'd love to see maybe a small book (prob for charity) detailing what happened to some of the other characters. Like what happened to George? who became the head of Hogwarts? Did Kingsley stay as the minister? What job does the trio have?

You really think Rowling has created 'backstory' as in depth as Tolkien's? I'm not so sure she could have done - Tolkien was working obsessively and continuously on Middle-earth from around 1917 to his death - there's so much material it's not all published, and you can already get the 12 volume History of Middle Earth, Letters, Biographies etc - we must have around 200 or more books of Tolkien criticism & extra material because there is still so much to comment on. Every single new name and word he created had to have a proper history - as words in the real world do - and this opened up more and more avenues for stories so the world he made became unimaginably complex. It's been keeping me occupied for the past 24 years anyway!

If Rowling has also produced that much stuff I'd be very impressed! And I hope she does do her own encyclopedia because those David Day ones based on Tolkien's work are rubbish and filled with errors. Rowling has the advantage of youth on her side to get some of this stuff done!

I am really glad she took the last story out of Hogwarts though - it was a risk of breaking her formula of course, but we finally got to see more of the wider Wizarding world.


I've read stuff that suggests its almost as indepth (apart maybe from the massive of linguistic work Tolkein did). But she certainly has boxes and boxes of unused notes and materials. I read an interview with her where she said that she created Harry's entire year group with names, descriptions and bits and pieces of background so she could ensure that the story and characterisation was consistent. She also mentioned that Dean has a massive back story that she just couldn't fit in.

I also believe she has put alot into developing the rules and magical laws which exist - ie how magic works, how is can't, things it can and cannot do. The scientific background if you will. Like the 5 constants or whatever they were called which means you can't create food, you can summon it and cook it, multiply it with magic, but you can't create it.

According to an interview at the launch (see www.mugglenet.com, front page) she has virtually confirmed that she will write it, and filling in the gaps in the 19 years before the epilogue and for characters we didn't hear about. Which suggests to me that she has roughed out ideas for what has gone on even if she didn't write about it. Though it may be a while in the writing as she is likely to take a break from all writing for a while.

She has also written about characters, including full back stories and plot arcs, which never made it to the books at all, not even a mention!

I'd love to read some of this stuff! Hopefully it won't get left until after her death - which is what happened with Tolkien. He didn't even get to complete The Silmarillion - his son Christopher has basically dedicated his whole life to sorting through all the drafts left to the estate and putting them into a publishable state, together with commentaries.

Mmm, a 12 Volume 'History of Hogwarts' would be fantastic! :cool:

However, judging by how long Pullman is taking over the longed for Book of Dust and Jean M Auel over the sixth volume of Earth's Children, she might take a seriously long break from Harry's world :(

I'd love to see maybe a small book (prob for charity) detailing what happened to some of the other characters. Like what happened to George? who became the head of Hogwarts? Did Kingsley stay as the minister? What job does the trio have?


That'd be a really good idea - like Quidditch Through the Ages and Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them.

I'd love to read some of this stuff! Hopefully it won't get left until after her death - which is what happened with Tolkien. He didn't even get to complete The Silmarillion - his son Christopher has basically dedicated his whole life to sorting through all the drafts left to the estate and putting them into a publishable state, together with commentaries.

Mmm, a 12 Volume 'History of Hogwarts' would be fantastic! :cool:

However, judging by how long Pullman is taking over the longed for Book of Dust and Jean M Auel over the sixth volume of Earth's Children, she might take a seriously long break from Harry's world :(

Haven't read any of the Dark Materials stuff - is it worth it?

Thats said I really enjoyed Shadowmancer, which was of a similar vein and a very good book. But definately less fun than Harry - and I felt less of a connection with the characters.

I really enjoyed this book, quite sad to think its the last! I would have liked to have found out what happened to Luna, Rons Family etc.

For more info ont he amount of background she has, go to her official site (jkrowling.com I believe) and click on the hairbrush for extras... a fraction of it is in there!

Haven't read any of the Dark Materials stuff - is it worth it?


Yes! They are wonderful books with amazingly deep and surprisingly adult themes. I think some American Christian organisations were quite upset by them as the central ideas quite strongly oppose established religion. They're definitely worth a read though!

I'm re-reading them at the moment to help me get over having no more Harry P - and it's working so far... :D

Haven't read any of the Dark Materials stuff - is it worth it?

Thats said I really enjoyed Shadowmancer, which was of a similar vein and a very good book. But definately less fun than Harry - and I felt less of a connection with the characters.

It's absolutely brilliant! And the film of The Golden Compass will be out in December so it's the ideal time to start the trilogy - Northern Lights is the British title. It's got the most fantastic female main character - a feisty, brave little girl, and some great characters. The pace is especially good on the first book and it can be quite frightening too - but keep tissues handy as it will make you cry! :(

They're a fascinating combination of adventure, science, religion and fantasy. Deadly magical. ;)

I read them through three times before I felt I'd really 'got' them so they're good value too.

I loved the book. The reason why the deaths started almost immediately and the action started at once was because the war was on!!! Voldermort has been back a while now but no real action has taken place, but now it has.

Casualties had to be in there to mirror real life, life is not fair and I think JK showed that. Snape was revealed to be good in the end but got what he deserved for he did betray Lily didn't he.

Dobby, I cried for. so sad but he would have died happy for saving Harry. I think the book could have been made longer but then how thick would it be, would need a wheelbarrow to carry it if JK went in to acute detail about everything. safe to say Harry succeeded and life was normal once again. so happy he ended up with Ginny. and when Hermione kissed Ron, my god, that was genius how it came about.

so long Harry, Ron and Hermione, I will miss you dearly.

JK you a complete genius!!! thank you for bringing Harry Potter in to my life!!!

Daniel Radcliffe - woo ooh - you hot totty now young man:hihi:

It's absolutely brilliant! And the film of The Golden Compass will be out in December so it's the ideal time to start the trilogy - Northern Lights is the British title. It's got the most fantastic female main character - a feisty, brave little girl, and some great characters. The pace is especially good on the first book and it can be quite frightening too - but keep tissues handy as it will make you cry! :(

They're a fascinating combination of adventure, science, religion and fantasy. Deadly magical. ;)

I read them through three times before I felt I'd really 'got' them so they're good value too.

Cool, Might pop them on the birthday list then!!

Definately need something tor eplace Harry - or I may find myself rereading them again already - and some people might start to think I've become obsessed!

http://www.usatoday.com/life/books/news/2007-07-25-harry-potter-spoilers_N.htm

Interesting article in which Rowling says she originally intended Arthur Weasley to die! She also says she does not want to fill in that 19 year gap in Harry's life as it would be a big anti-climax after the huge story with Voldemort. I suspected this - Tolkien began writing a 4th age story set some years after Aragorn's death and abandoned it saying it was just too depressing to write, as nothing could possibly be as important as the story of Lord of the Rings...

I haven't read it and don't think I'm going to. I liked the first couple of books but when halfway through one of them it all seemed like a bit of an effort and I went off it so for the first time ever (I always prefer books to films) I think I'm going to wait for the film!

Can't believe Dobby's died though, I loved him!

What happened at the very end then? x

There's some expansion on the epilogue here (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19959323/).

I've just been reading around on some forums and have come across the following (quite gaping) plot hole. If Grindelwald had the Elder Wand which always ensures the holder wins duels when he duelled with Dumbeldore, how did Dumbeldore beat him to get the wand? :huh:

from what I understood Grindelwald stole the wand and therefore wasn't the rightful holder which is why Dumbledore could defeat him.

[QUOTE=Dark Moomin;2472318]Haven't read any of the Dark Materials stuff - is it worth it?]

Read Blake and Dante instead. His atheistic aims are admirable however his literary abilities do not match them. A shame, the first half of "Northern Lights" was fantastic. Downhill from there unfortunately. Strange, as I am a total atheist myself...perhaps I should just love it in order to help the world move on! Dunno.

It's got the most fantastic female main character - a feisty, brave little girl..


But she is very thinly written. Her stock line appears to be "Oh, Will!". She has no personality and seems to be nothing more than a pawn with which Pullman attempts to bring a sickly human side to his atheist point of view(with which I fundamentally agree). Why not just do it, like Professor Dawkins, instead of couching it in terms of post-Blake-ian/Dante-ian language? I just don't think he is a particularly good nor original writer.