Deathly Hallows: A disappointment? v2

Quite a few fans feel that not every part of the last Harry Potter book exceeded their expectations and want to share these feelings.

But while doing that it is important to keep in mind that being disappointed does not give us the right to hurt the feelings of our fellow members or our beloved author. So in addition to the Forum rules (http://www.cosforums.com/showthread.php?t=120541) and Zero Tolerance Policy (http://www.cosforums.com/showthread.php?t=22998) the following will be enforced:

1. How to have a pleasant conversation on any topic. (http://www.cosforums.com/showthread.php?t=106994) - please read and understand this thread. Failure to respect other members and their opinions will result in a five day suspension from the Common Room.

2. J.K. Rowling is a real person. Therefore, while criticism is fine, bashing is not. No derogatory comments on her abilities, intentions, morals, intelligence or whatnot will be tolerated.

Okay: JKR was inconsistent with her use of the Fidelius Charm between PoA and DH. This is confusing and disappointing.

NOT okay: JKR has failed in giving the Fidelius Charm plot any credibility.

Quite a few fans feel that not every part of the last Harry Potter book exceeded their expectations and want to share these feelings.

When I hear people complaining about book 7 I always wonder whether or not they would be complaining if Harry Potter had not been such huge success internationally. In someways it feals as though the popularity of HP has played against it so plot holes which would be over looked in other artists become a big deal simply because it is HP.

When I hear people complaining about book 7 I always wonder whether or not they would be complaining if Harry Potter had not been such huge success internationally. In someways it feals as though the popularity of HP has played against it so plot holes which would be over looked in other artists become a big deal simply because it is HP

Yes, overanalytical fan power...

I actually think a lot of complaints come from people not understanding things that already make sense and do work fine together, like the Trace and Dumbledore's previous explanation. Our hanging on her every word, even outside the books, probably contributes too. But I don't think that things she says outside of the books really make the books themselves contradictory. It's nice to know what she's thinking at the time, but it doesn't really detract from the story itself. There are some things that I think she should have caught, but they're not huge deals.

The huge deal for me was that I was expecting a PoA type twist, or maybe some small, extra, clever twists. That comes from prolonged exposure to the fandom though. It's just that the Deathly Hallows plot did not make me gasp the way the CoS or PoA or HBP surprises did. Sometimes it seems that the last book was more of an epilogue in itself, just a way to wrap everything up, rather than the exciting, peaking end to the series.

Yes, overanalytical fan power...

Not only that but an over-hyped media response, which I am in two minds about because I loved the feeling of exitement and anticipation which preceeded DH but is one of the main reasons that even had DH been perfect beyond doubt, there would still be questionings as to it's credibility.

It's nice to know what she's thinking at the time, but it doesn't really detract from the story itself. There are some things that I think she should have caught, but they're not huge deals.

The only major one I've spotted is that she said Grindelwald was dead but apart from that no too bad.


The huge deal for me was that I was expecting a PoA type twist, or maybe some small, extra, clever twists. That comes from prolonged exposure to the fandom though. It's just that the Deathly Hallows plot did not make me gasp the way the CoS or PoA or HBP surprises did. Sometimes it seems that the last book was more of an epilogue in itself, just a way to wrap everything up, rather than the exciting, peaking end to the series.

To be honest I wasn't expected loads of twists; the HP series is kinda like a puzzle and once you have most of it (6 sevenths in this case) you do get a pretty good idea of how the finished article is going to look

As Neville was gaining more confidence in himself as a wizard and Bellatrix become more and more blood-thirsty, I was hoping during the final battle, that Neville would blow off Bellatrix's head.

Disappointment is a very strong word.

I found each new book better than its predecessors, so I did have the expectation that DH would, again, be even better than HBP, which was - and still is now - my favourite. In expecting this, I was let down, but alas! It was still a hugely enjoyable book nonetheless.

Directly after reading it, I was torn between thinking 'God, I love it!', but also - 'this is lacking structural balance and leaves me slightly unsatisfied'. Four weeks later now, the feeling 'Love it' has prevailed. On the one hand, I'm really easy to be made happy, I think. I won't be disappointed because the 'Trace' is said to be inconsistent with what we have heard in other books. (In fact, I don't have a clue if that's true even; a lot of theories and criticism are such 'in-depth' questions that I can merely shrug because I never thought about it). Neither will I be disappointed because Neville didn't kill Bella or other plot points like this. It's her story, she can write as she pleases, and she did stay absolutely 'in-story' with DH, too, so what's there to complain? (just as an example to illustrate what I mean - even though it's her story, I would have been incredibly disappointed if 'incredible' plots had suddenly come out of the blue, like Petunia being not only a witch, but also a lost Black sister and after making a U-turn of character, being ultimately the one to deliver the means of defeating Voldemort. Stuff like that would have left me 'What the hell was that now?!')

I'm less easy with the 'formalities' if that's the correct word for it even, and in this respect, I wasn't overwhelmed by the (in my opinion) unbalanced pacing. But telling myself that DH was supposed to be 'the other half' of HBP sheds a different light on it, because seen like that, the balance is there again and I'm happy :love:

On the argument that "hype" (meaning "advertising") led to disappointment, I don't quite agree. You could've taken away all the ads for this book and I *still* was looking forward to it with great anticipation. The reason being, of course, the build-up in the first 6 books. The huge number of unanswered questions left a gaping need for answers. That alone made the 7th book worth anticipating. Then, if you want to add SOME hype, let's talk about JKR's actual website (not some misquoted interview, but the words of the author on her official site) saying "In a very short time you will know EVERYTHING!" Quite a promise!

Having hashed through this thread from the beginning, I've had a revalation that the disappointment I feel is from two sources:

1) The absolute lack of answers to "EVERYTHING". Even if that statement hadn't been made, the first 6 books were written in such a way that answers were teased at, but put off for the future. In some cases (Dumbledore's hand) the answer finally came. In other cases (why did the Potter house implode from a rebounded AK and why did the AK that killed Dumbledore knock him off the tower when Dumbledore explicitly states in book 6 that AK has never left any traces except Harry's scar). You've read the lists...you know what questions she didn't answer.

2) The writing itself. The first two books, as cliche'd as they were, were just fun romps...easy reads. No harm, no foul. "Children's books". But as the series got darker, it became less easy to overlook spots of bad writing or editing. Thankfully there were always fun and exciting parts to bridge over some of the duller or poorly written chapters. This pattern is especially true in book 6 where wonderful chapters (the special lessons with Dumbledore...the first potion lesson with Slughorn...) are interwoven with long tedious descriptive passages or unenjoyable storylines and words like "snogging". In book 7 the pattern flip flopped and the book read more like having a lot of BAD chapters and only the occasionally rare GOOD chapter. "Trudging through"..."trying to make myself care"...etc. These are phrases I recall as I struggled to get through the tedium of the worlds longest book about 3 teenagers on a year long camping trip.

Hoping I've not broken too many of the "new rules"...

The huge deal for me was that I was expecting a PoA type twist, or maybe some small, extra, clever twists. That comes from prolonged exposure to the fandom though. It's just that the Deathly Hallows plot did not make me gasp the way the CoS or PoA or HBP surprises did. Sometimes it seems that the last book was more of an epilogue in itself, just a way to wrap everything up, rather than the exciting, peaking end to the series.

Yes DH was more the wrap-up kind of book where every answer to all the questions that fans have been asking for years can be viewed as individual twists. It is, after all, a tale of a hero who must finish his journey alone - a common literary pattern where the hero encounters the villain in a final battle. The twists have taken place and it was time that it went right down to business and provided a conclusion. I've noticed that every twist triggered off a series of questions in the series, not that I minded them at all, in fact, PoA is still the best IMO because of its extraordinary ending, but the way DH concluded is an old favorite.

I thought DH was perfect to the last word. It was wonderfully written, very gripping and the characters were fascinating to read even more than before.

I thought DH was perfect to the last word.

I'm curious, just to put your comments into perspective....is DH the only book you've ever read that was perfect? If not, what other books do you consider "perfect"?

I think, and have stated so before, that a lot of readers have made huge theories about almost every aspect of these books and pumped too much lore and myth into everything JK has written, when most of the time she was just having an off hand joke with a name or spell. I really do think the series and DH was a lot simpler than most people gave credit for and so it was our own fault (I include myself in this) if there were no mega fantastical revelations and some people felt let down.
I still enjoyed it and will continue to do so :)

I personally did not feel any disappointment upon finishing the book. I thought that it was a fitting end to a great series. (I did feel a bit of confusion concerning wandlore and Lily's protection, but that's besides the point.) There were a few points that weren't explained in the book, however, that sort of tugged at me after I had finished. For instance, there was no mention of Luna in the epilogue, but what JKR said afterwards in an interview pretty much confirmed what I had assumed. The big one for me was the change in James's character; it wasn't explained at all. I assume that means that we have to take what Lupin and Sirius said to Harry through the fireplace in OP at face value.

I can see where people are coming from when they are disappointed. Harry did get out of everything with luck and everything was pretty convienient. The Hallows were also a bit confusing.

But, to contradict myself, the entire series is about Harry getting out of everything miraculously, is it not? He has, in almost every book, gotten out of trouble when he really should have died or at least been seriously injured. But the miraculous escapes are explained in DH. Harry and Voldemort kept each other alive, thus neither can live while the other survives. It was all about blood, and even more than that, soul connection.

In and interview with JKR, she said that "one of the main themes, if not the main theme, is death". The books are very emotionally involved. It was never about flashing lights or long, drawn out battle scenes. It wasn't about the battles at all. It was to show us about love and hate, life and death, which is where the hallows come in. The hallows were used to explain reaction to death to us.

So, I believe that most of our disappointment comes from ourselves and from pure misunderstanding.

I must admit that my mouth is always left open when people say they were "disappointed" or it "didn't live up to their expectations".

People shouldn't put such high expectations on a book if they can't deal with the disappointment. I started Deathly Hallows with a clear mind. Beforehand, I had made a few theories here and there but other than that I was willing to wait for Jo to guide me into the final installment, and that way I couldn't be disappointed.

However, saying that, I was expecting a kind of "Oh my goodness I wasn't expecting that!" twist, and we did actually get that with the Elder Wand and Harry is a Horcrux plots, which I was happy about.

We must remember that this is Jo's story and she is kindly allowing us to read it and enjoy it. She makes up the rules and no matter how many fans complain, I think she was happy with the book and it showed in her writing.

One of my favourite books of the series! Well done Jo! :tu:

People shouldn't put such high expectations on a book if they can't deal with the disappointment.

I'm afraid I cannot agree. My disappointments with the book did not stem from high expectations but the high standards of Ms. Rowling set for herself as a writer. I cannot find fault in not reading this book from the perspective of "Wow, this is way better than the average fantasy novel." And, despite appearance to the contrary, I am "dealing" with the disappointment just fine: I found a great community to share my viewpoints.

We must remember that this is Jo's story and she is kindly allowing us to read it and enjoy it.

An interesting perspective, but again I cannot agree. If I found the Harry Potter series stashed on Ms. Rowling's website in some personal library, there for any to read for free, then I would just be thankful I could read it at all.

Instead, she chose to publish it. She chose to submit it, edit it, print it, market it, advance it to critics, and eventually sell it to me. To me, this is a novel being put in the public eye, and part of the money she received from me is penance for accepting public critique. She chose the career of professional writer, and I would assume she has become accustomed to this phenomena.

I'm curious, just to put your comments into perspective....is DH the only book you've ever read that was perfect? If not, what other books do you consider "perfect"?

There are quite a few books I find flawlessly written (that is, of course, a matter of opinion :)) and one of them I thought I should mention is Immortality by Milan Kundera - it's from a completely different genre though. But if you want something closer to HP, I would say My Hero by Tom Holt and Mort by Terry Pratchett.

I'm afraid I cannot agree. My disappointments with the book did not stem from high expectations but the high standards of Ms. Rowling set for herself as a writer. I cannot find fault in not reading this book from the perspective of "Wow, this is way better than the average fantasy novel." And, despite appearance to the contrary, I am "dealing" with the disappointment just fine: I found a great community to share my viewpoints.

Okay, so your disappointment stems from the fact that you think the previous books are better than Deathly Hallows, is that what you meant, or am I catching the wrong end of the stick? I am, actually, glad you are dealing wih your disappointment :D

An interesting perspective, but again I cannot agree. If I found the Harry Potter series stashed on Ms. Rowling's website in some personal library, there for any to read for free, then I would just be thankful I could read it at all.

Instead, she chose to publish it. She chose to submit it, edit it, print it, market it, advance it to critics, and eventually sell it to me. To me, this is a novel being put in the public eye, and part of the money she received from me is penance for accepting public critique. She chose the career of professional writer, and I would assume she has become accustomed to this phenomena.

Yes, indeed she did choose to publish this novel and let the whole world read it (whilst pocketing money herself), I don't deny that. My point is, that some people - not necessarily you, as I don't know all of your views on this - made up theories and made expectations of Deathly Hallows but have been disappointed because they didn't turn out to be in the book. One example of this would be the veil, as many people were expecting it to be a key point of Deathly Hallows, and now that we know it wasn't they are disappointed because what they thought should've been in the book wasn't there. So, what I meant was this is Jo's book and we should be grateful that she did come up with this idea and perservere with it into creating this wonderful series. I was upset that some people thought their ideas were better than Jo's and were annoyed that their theories didn't work out.

And, I do agree that the Harry Potter series should be up for critique and I think that Jo has known that whilst she has been writing the series.

There are quite a few books I find flawlessly written (that is, of course, a matter of opinion :)) and one of them I thought I should mention is Immortality by Milan Kundera - it's from a completely different genre though. But if you want something closer to HP, I would say My Hero by Tom Holt and Mort by Terry Pratchett.

I've not heard of any of these, so I'll take this as a recommendation to try them. Thank you.

As to dhermann's note, I agree...JKR accepted the horrible burden of me calling her a terrible writer (if I choose) or the world's most perfect writer (if I choose) by charging me money for her story. "You get what you pay for" means that I expect this book to be as good as, if not better than, the average $20 purchase. I'd grade this book below average. Considering that she's a professional writer and people besides me think the book is "perfect", my gosh...she can certainly live with my awful criticism. :)

Ah...page 2....let's make it past 54 this time :)

Instead, she chose to publish it. She chose to submit it, edit it, print it, market it, advance it to critics, and eventually sell it to me. To me, this is a novel being put in the public eye, and part of the money she received from me is penance for accepting public critique. She chose the career of professional writer, and I would assume she has become accustomed to this phenomena.

I completely agree. There's this permeating belief from some of the fans who loved the book that those who found it extraordinarily lacking (myself included) are somehow not getting it, or taking it too seriously, or that we were wrong to have expectations at all. These criticisms of our criticisms usually have a "love it, or leave it!" tone about them.

Apart from our little pet theories about how the series would end, we did indeed have expectations about this book. JKR created and expanded on a brand new world with it's own distinct tone and feeling as she wrote each novel. We came to feel at home in her world, with her writing style and how she's going to relate the story to us all while still being surprised with new characters, places, events and twists. She has shown from her previous books that plot and situational set-ups almost always resolve to have future importance - usually within the same story, but sometimes in later books. This is basic storytelling 101. JKR was especially gifted at this because the "voice" of her books was so well established in PS/SS. Deathly Hallows, by contrast, curiously ignores many prior plot set-ups, and that is why many are disappointed. 99.9% of us could care less what the names of Harry's grandparent are, but we were looking for resolutions of seemingly important storylines that JKR built up in her previous novels.

For example, in book 6 the students are taught and spend a significant amount of time learning to use non-verbal spells. Since their importance didn't come to much fruition at the end of HBP, some of us expected it to play a larger role in book 7. Since they didn't, that begs the question, "Why would JKR, who has shown previously not to waste story-space with unimportant plot threads, choose to spend a lot of time on non-verbal spells if they weren't meant to be important?"

This is just one example among many of the kind of expectations that lead some of us to believe their omission is probably attributed to other factors (i.e. rushed to publish, poor editing, fan pressures, etc.) rather than her personal preference.

~ Dan Estes

I completely agree. There's this permeating belief from some of the fans who loved the book that those who found it extraordinarily lacking (myself included) are somehow not getting it, or taking it too seriously, or that we were wrong to have expectations at all. These criticisms of our criticisms usually have a "love it, or leave it!" tone about them.


Okay, as a fan who loved the book, I am sometimes bewildered when people say they were disappointed with the book.

I don't think anyone was wrong having expectations of the book at all, in fact, I came on the CoS Forums to seek theories and discuss what I thought would happen. However, my problem is with people who expected too much and therefore were building themselves up for a disappointment before they even began the book.

I'm interested to know what parts of the book you found disappointing. Could you share them? :)

Topic Reminder.

While Jo's decision to write and publish is important because without we wouldn't have a book causing us disappointment, it is not the topic of this thread.

Anyone who doesn't want to stay on topic might perhaps start with rereading post # 1.

I completely agree. There's this permeating belief from some of the fans who loved the book that those who found it extraordinarily lacking (myself included) are somehow not getting it, or taking it too seriously, or that we were wrong to have expectations at all. These criticisms of our criticisms usually have a "love it, or leave it!" tone about them.

Well, not meaning to be blunt, but ... what else is there? I mean, it's ready, it's published, and you either liked it or you didn't. If you didn't, put it away. What else can be done?

For example, in book 6 the students are taught and spend a significant amount of time learning to use non-verbal spells. Since their importance didn't come to much fruition at the end of HBP, some of us expected it to play a larger role in book 7. Since they didn't, that begs the question, "Why would JKR, who has shown previously not to waste story-space with unimportant plot threads, choose to spend a lot of time on non-verbal spells if they weren't meant to be important?"

That's not really true. She spent a lot of page-space with things that did nothing to contribute to the plot, but added flesh to the world of HP - like Quidditch for example, or Filch and Mrs. Norris's battle against students, or Norbert, or Grawp, or Ron's crush on Madam Rosmerta, or Metamorhmagi, etc. etc. etc. It would have been a very dry story if only the things with consequence to the plot were included.


I want to be understood correctly this time. I don't mind people not liking the book, and I don't mind critisism if it's constructive and knowledgeable. But I think that blaming it all on the author/publishers/editors/etc. is unrealistic. In most of the cases the matter of liking or disliking a piece of art liew within the one perceiving it, and the reasons of his/her reaction have a lot more to do with him/her than with the artist.

I'm interested to know what parts of the book you found disappointing. Could you share them? :)

While many of our disappointments are still available on the previous thread, Dan brings up a representative example of many of my issues: several plot points and devices, emphasized in previous books and earlier in Deathly Hallows, seemed to be missing entirely from the climax of the book, when Ms. Rowling usually "ties it all together".

And, though I hate to bring it up again because I suspect I'll receive the same demi-answers, I cannot determine the point of characterizing Draco Malfoy in "The Lightning-Struck Tower", "The Dark Lord Ascending", and "Malfoy Manor" as full of self-doubt and nearly sympathetic to the protagonists, then remove that characterization at "The Battle of Hogwarts" with no explanation.

Well, not meaning to be blunt, but ... what else is there? I mean, it's ready, it's published, and you either liked it or you didn't. If you didn't, put it away. What else can be done?

I don't think we're allowed to talk about this anymore.

That's not really true. She spent a lot of page-space with things that did nothing to contribute to the plot, but added flesh to the world of HP - like Quidditch for example, or Filch and Mrs. Norris's battle against students, or Norbert, or Grawp, or Ron's crush on Madam Rosmerta, or Metamorhmagi, etc. etc. etc. It would have been a very dry story if only the things with consequence to the plot were included.

But the things you are describing all had a form of resolution or no conflict set forth to begin with. The use of non-verbal spells and Occlumency played a major role in Professor Snape's escape from Harry at the end of Half-Blood Prince. Wouldn't Harry have been interested in how to master these skills in case he ever faced Snape again?

LoonyMagic,

Thanks for your reply and inquiry. I will definitely admit that my expectations for HP7 were unfairly way too high, even for JK Rowling. I set myself up for disappointment for sure. This was the one main "flaw in my own plan," wrongly assuming that JKR had this extraordinarily detailed-down-to-the-last-word blueprint on how to wrap up the entire series. I listened to the weekly podcasts, read nearly all of JKR's interviews, read most fan editorials (though I didn't care much for fan fiction), and carried on endless discussion with friends over almost every little detail. While reading the stories, I was finding meaning in between the lines that probably was never there at all. In short, I was bound to feel let down. Though, in my own defense, I definitely wasn't alone in my obsession. The HP books were so well-crafted that many of us were led to believe that the entire series would resolve in a similar grand way that each book resolves - all loose plot threads interconnecting, surprising twists, etc.

Nevertheless, while struggling to remain as objective as possible, I do believe there's a case for Deathly Hallows being significantly sub-standard from the rest of the series. Just so I don't get scolded from the moderators again for being off-topic, I will try to keep this explanation confined within context.

{Though I would like to protest the moderators' dictum that all speculations as to whether or not HP7 was written the best it could be are off limits and not to be included. Critiques of the work can't always assume the creator wasn't influenced, sometimes for the worse, by outside factors. That's all I wanted to say, please don't ban me. I'll play nice now. :cool:}

There are many examples from previous threads that point to certain story inconsistencies in HP7, and I find it intriguing that so many message board discussions are related to confusion with the story or other plot problems. I can summarize my discontent by saying there were enough of these inconsistencies in the book that I was jolted out of the story - my suspension of belief had stretched so far that the "believability" of the world was broken for me. For those of you familiar with Stephen King's Dark Tower series, a similar thing happened when King wrote himself, as himself, into the story towards the end of the series. We readers were reminded, within the context of the story, that our favorite characters were just characters. Some stories can pull this off, but it's my opinion that the Dark Tower novels were not successful in doing so. JK Rowling, thankfully, did not go that far with the Harry Potter novels, but I believe the characters, their motivations, and the plot are all definitely inconsistent with the previous novels. An example would be my non-verbal spell example from my previous post. Another example is the total-and-complete lack of explanation for what happened in Godric's Hollow that night when Harry was a baby. (JKR teased us with hints from her website and in interviews that there was something going on that night, but nothing happened that we didn't already know.) Another example is that I don't believe that Voldemort, perhaps the most intelligent wizard in a century (possibly second to only Dumbledore), would make so many inane decisions as he did in this book. (His soul may have been tortured, but Dumbledore told us that his mind is still very much intact.) All of these examples and more, for me, are not believable within the context of the story. I know this explanation still won't suffice for many, but I don't know how to make it much clearer.

~ Dan Estes

I completely agree. There's this permeating belief from some of the fans who loved the book that those who found it extraordinarily lacking (myself included) are somehow not getting it, or taking it too seriously, or that we were wrong to have expectations at all. These criticisms of our criticisms usually have a "love it, or leave it!" tone about them.

Isn't that the nature of all art? We can criticise all we like, and critical discussion is a brilliant thing; but in the end we do have to 'love it or leave it', because the book itself will never change.

Isn't that the nature of all art? We can criticise all we like, and critical discussion is a brilliant thing; but in the end we do have to 'love it or leave it', because the book itself will never change.

Indeed, but the line must be drawn where "leave it!" becomes synonymous "leave it and shut up!" It's an attitude thing. Yes, we should love it or leave it, but whatever our decision on that score, we are not obligated to be quite about it.

Yes, we should love it or leave it, but whatever our decision on that score, we are not obligated to be quite about it.

Didn't I say that? ‘‘Leave it'' and 'leave it and shut up'' aren't synonymous, and the former does not herald the latter.

In other cases (why did the Potter house implode from a rebounded AK and why did the AK that killed Dumbledore knock him off the tower when Dumbledore explicitly states in book 6 that AK has never left any traces except Harry's scar).

Side note:

Some Expelliarmus disarming spells are known to send the target flying or sprawling, so that in effect they do more than disarm (the spell's debut performance, where Snape blasted Gilderoy Lockhart halfway to Venus, is a case in point), whereas others merely send the wand spinning out in some random direction but the target is left unharmed. This fluctuation in a spell's effect isn't a new thing; we've seen it discussed before, on Expelliarmus of course, but I contend that it's not necessarily an one-spell-exclusive thing. And as the reason for the fluctuation is never explained (it can be inferred that a particular viciousness on the part of the caster plays a part--again, the Snape vs. Lockhart skirmish is a case in point).

This is, of course, merely the point my brain called up to answer the question when it first came to mind (I'm not sure if that was at the end of my first HBP reading or sometime later.) That Severus Snape is reported to have had an expression of loathing on his face at the time of the murder suggests to me that his Avada Kedavra may have been especially fierce: we know by the end of Deathly Hallows that he wasn't exactly happy with Dumbledore, after all, so this is not altogether unreasonable.

But as I say, this is merely a side note. I do not intend to debate the point further; it's speculation, so it'd be an off-topic waste of time to dig into.

Didn't I say that?

Did you? It was kind of hard to tell. You might have been agreeing, or you might have been saying something closer to "Yes, but..." I thought my way of saying it was a bit easier to understand, at the very least. At any rate it couldn't be construed by Dan or anyone else as a disagreement with his complaint, which is concerned more with that attitude I warn about, the unspoken (and sometimes spoken, but gods know the moderators straighten those blibbering humdingers out if they catch them) "Leave it and shut up!"

EDIT: Ah, you editted after I posted. Well, yes, they're not synonomous, but as I say, it's an attitude thing. I openly admit I'm at least partly guilty of such an attitude myself, sometimes. We don't like to hear other people criticize what we like, so we try to get them to shut their mouths about it. That's how such a phrase as "Love it or leave it" turns nasty. Bad attitude inserts words between the lines. But no worries. As I say, that's why we've got moderators...

While many of our disappointments are still available on the previous thread, Dan brings up a representative example of many of my issues: several plot points and devices, emphasized in previous books and earlier in Deathly Hallows, seemed to be missing entirely from the climax of the book, when Ms. Rowling usually "ties it all together".

And do you really think it would be possible to tie every subplot up in Deathly Hallows? I think that would be unrealistic and I'm glad we weren't told everything - it would make for some boring storytelling.

And, though I hate to bring it up again because I suspect I'll receive the same demi-answers, I cannot determine the point of characterizing Draco Malfoy in "The Lightning-Struck Tower", "The Dark Lord Ascending", and "Malfoy Manor" as full of self-doubt and nearly sympathetic to the protagonists, then remove that characterization at "The Battle of Hogwarts" with no explanation.

Okay, my own personal view on Draco is that he served his purpose. JK never intended Draco to do anything more than what he was given to do in HBP and to also buy time in the Malfoy's Manor by pretending to not be sure if they had captured Harry or not. What did you expect to happen at "The Battle of Hogwarts"? Draco suddenly saying "I'm not going to be a Death Eater any more" and going to fight against Voldemort? Draco is a Slytherin - Slytherin's will do anything to save their own necks and that's what we see him do. At the end of the day, yes, Draco does have doubts about where his loyalty lies, but he sure as hell is too scared to act on those doubts.



I will definitely admit that my expectations for HP7 were unfairly way too high, even for JK Rowling. I set myself up for disappointment for sure. This was the one main "flaw in my own plan," wrongly assuming that JKR had this extraordinarily detailed-down-to-the-last-word blueprint on how to wrap up the entire series. I listened to the weekly podcasts, read nearly all of JKR's interviews, read most fan editorials (though I didn't care much for fan fiction), and carried on endless discussion with friends over almost every little detail.

I did exactly the same. Many would say the anticipation was better than actually receiving the book and reading it. There was so much speculation and so many theories it was hard not to make expectations. I guess you've just got to remember what has actually been laid down in the books instead of what you expect.

While reading the stories, I was finding meaning in between the lines that probably was never there at all. In short, I was bound to feel let down. Though, in my own defense, I definitely wasn't alone in my obsession. The HP books were so well-crafted that many of us were led to believe that the entire series would resolve in a similar grand way that each book resolves - all loose plot threads interconnecting, surprising twists, etc.

Your most definitely not alone. Yes, the previous books were so well-loved and many people were waiting for Deathly Hallows and wanting it to be bigger and better.

JK Rowling, thankfully, did not go that far with the Harry Potter novels, but I believe the characters, their motivations, and the plot are all definitely inconsistent with the previous novels.

I actually would have to disagree. I believed that almost all characters and their motivations moved with them as a character and stayed true to their character.

An example would be my non-verbal spell example from my previous post.

Like Yoana stated in a previous post, things such as non-verbal spells flesh the whole world of Harry Potter out.

Another example is the total-and-complete lack of explanation for what happened in Godric's Hollow that night when Harry was a baby. (JKR teased us with hints from her website and in interviews that there was something going on that night, but nothing happened that we didn't already know.)

Okay, so the actual canon doesn't set us up for this. There isn't really any questioning in the canon or from Harry himself about what happened that night. Yes, Jo has said things on her website and such, but she has also said other things that turned out not to be in the books. For example, the person who could do magic later on in life.

Another example is that I don't believe that Voldemort, perhaps the most intelligent wizard in a century (possibly second to only Dumbledore), would make so many inane decisions as he did in this book. (His soul may have been tortured, but Dumbledore told us that his mind is still very much intact.)

Inane decisions? Such as...? Jo needed to elaborate on the fact that is arrogant, which turns out to be his downfall. We also should remember that he has made other stupid decisions, such as taking blood from Harry in GoF. Even though Wormtail said that he could take blood from another, Voldemort ignored that and essentially made the decision to tether Harry to life in DH.

AndOkay, so the actual canon doesn't set us up for this. There isn't really any questioning in the canon or from Harry himself about what happened that night. Yes, Jo has said things on her website and such, but she has also said other things that turned out not to be in the books. For example, the person who could do magic later on in life.

On this score we did get something: Snape's request that Voldemort spare Lily. And that was about the only twist in regards to the murder at Godric's Hollow that could possibly have been canonly predicted. (We also find out from Jo that yes, Wormtail salvaged Voldemort's wand, but that fact is not a canon one, and in regards to the when and how of it, we can only speculate. My bet is that Wormtail hid the wand someplace where he could find it if he needed it--I'd guess someplace near the Burrow.)

Insane decisions?

Not to nitpick, but the word is "inane." That's a close cousin to "idiotic," and has nothing to do with "insane."

Such as...?

I for one don't see anything Voldemort did in this book as particularly intelligent, but I don't see it as particularly inane, either. As for the Evil Genius aspect, I always saw that as a kind of take-it-for-granted quality, like Mad-Eye Moody's Auror Awesomeness. We caught glimpses of it (Voldemort flying; the DADA jinx; the defenses around the basin in the cave; his plan to get to Harry in the fourth book...). But Voldemort didn't display his brain in a glass case for the reader to see, so he also did some things that weren't very evil genius at all, and we're left to figure them out for ourselves.

Jo needed to elaborate on the fact that is arrogant, which turns out to be his downfall. We also should remember that he has made other stupid decisions, such as taking blood from Harry in GoF. Even though Wormtail said that he could take blood from another, Voldemort ignored that and essentially made the decision to tether Harry to life in DH.

Many see that as a characterization flaw, though. That Voldemort was so very arrogant is something that they consider a direct contradiction to his status as the Evil Genius Mastermind Overlord Dude. I would like to remind these people that one can obtain any height of power if one is intelligent and powerful enough, no matter how much arrogance they take with them when they do, or gain after the fact. Pride goeth before the fall, but to fall you must first stand up.

On this score we did get something: Snape's request that Voldemort spare Lily. And that was about the only twist in regards to the murder at Godric's Hollow that could possibly have been canonly predicted. (We also find out from Jo that yes, Wormtail salvaged Voldemort's wand, but that fact is not a canon one, and in regards to the when and how of it, we can only speculate. My bet is that Wormtail hid the wand someplace where he could find it if he needed it--I'd guess someplace near the Burrow.)

A great example. We found out a bit more about what happened.

Not to nitpick, but the word is "inane." That's a close cousin to "idiotic," and has nothing to do with "insane."

Ooops. My bad :blush:. Why do I post in the mornings when I'm not awake?! I must edit my previous post. :D

I for one don't see anything Voldemort did in this book as particularly intelligent, but I don't see it as particularly inane, either.

Okay, just went on dictionary look-up just to make sure I fully understood the term "inane". I wouldn't say that he lacked substance, however, I would agree that to a point he was inane. He was foolish to do some of the things that he did.

A great example. We found out a bit more about what happened.

Yeah. Problem is, as in the case of Petunia Dursley, a lot of us were expecting quite a bit more than a bit, and when we didn't get it, we were naturally let down.

I was not among them, of course. I think I've made it plain that I was happy with what I got. But there you go: a clear and shining example of Fan-Hype at work in the world.

Okay, just went on dictionary look-up just to make sure I fully understood the term "inane". I wouldn't say that he lacked substance, however, I would agree that to a point he was inane. He was foolish to do some of the things that he did.

Yes, to a point. But I didn't deny that: he did not act in a particularly intelligent way (this is my admission that he was quite stupid to a point), but not particularly (uniquely, unusually, uncannily) inane. I don't see anything stupid he did in this book as being too stupid for Lord High Voldy to have done. But I guess that's a debatable point, like so much else in these books.

But the things you are describing all had a form of resolution or no conflict set forth to begin with. The use of non-verbal spells and Occlumency played a major role in Professor Snape's escape from Harry at the end of Half-Blood Prince. Wouldn't Harry have been interested in how to master these skills in case he ever faced Snape again?

If they played a major role in Sanpe's escaping, then they have played their part, haven't they? They can hardly be considered unfinished plotlines or hanging points.

Plus Harry had already mastered non-verbal spells, and Dumbledore had told him that it didn't matter that he never mastered Occlumency. These are two quite well-rounded and finished plotlines, if you ask me.

If they played a major role in Sanpe's escaping, then they have played their part, haven't they? They can hardly be considered unfinished plotlines or hanging points.

Plus Harry had already mastered non-verbal spells, and Dumbledore had told him that it didn't matter that he never mastered Occlumency. These are two quite well-rounded and finished plotlines, if you ask me.

Well, he got the knack for it, but I wouldn't go so far as to say he mastered them. He (like many of the other wizards) still resorted to shouting the incantations when caught up in the heat of the moment.

EDIT: Ah, you editted after I posted. Well, yes, they're not synonomous, but as I say, it's an attitude thing. I openly admit I'm at least partly guilty of such an attitude myself, sometimes. We don't like to hear other people criticize what we like, so we try to get them to shut their mouths about it. That's how such a phrase as "Love it or leave it" turns nasty. Bad attitude inserts words between the lines. But no worries. As I say, that's why we've got moderators...

I think that criticism is all well and good, and should be encouraged. I kind of lean to the 'love it or leave it' end of things, as I think criticism is all well and good, but getting emotional about that, I think is pointless; in the end, you like something or you don't.

After reading book 7 (a couple times) although I enjoyed it, I was left with a sense of frustration over the logical oddities or errors. There’s a listing somewhere of minor ones from previous books such as a door being closed twice – that sort of thing. I’m hopeful that sometime in the next years there will be a VERSION TWO to put things like that right. But there are also several major points that need revision. I understand Tolkien did that for typological errors in his early printings.

Book 1: I found the movie had done a brilliant and faithful job of bringing the book to screen. There were a few irritating changes that bothered me more with time: Harry’s hair wasn’t sticking up and Hermione’s wasn’t bushy. We learned several books on that “no spell can bring back the dead.” So Voldemort’s line, “We can bring them back,” was out of place in the film. I had hoped that in a second edition Dumbledore would say the rule early on with the Mirror of Erised. But as we now know that wasn’t a firm rule of the HP universe. Still, someone like Ron or Hermione could have said it. The movie did have a couple scenes that “fixed” ones from the book.

Fix 1: Harry removes the glass for the snake and his cousin falls in before the glass comes back. Much better than the book. Unfortunately, in the HP universe a child could accidentally vanish the glass, but I don’t think it would come back unless someone from the Ministry was secretly following Harry for his protection, and summoned it.

Fix 2: Quirrell shakes Harry’s hand in the book, but not the movie. The latter was better.

Fix 3: Harry overhears Snape and Quirrell by flying on broomstick after Quidditch. The film was much better since it had Harry discovering them at night under the cloak.

Books 2 & 6:
Issue 1: The descriptions of the Vanishing Cabinet do not match the cabinet in Borgin and Burkes. Since it was important later, there could have been a clue like one had red trim and the other had gold trim, or they were exactly the same size. As far as we knew there was no more linkage between the two than with the coat closet in the Professors’ break room.

Issue 2: There is never any indication that Draco ever got the Hand of Glory until book 6. It would have been so easy for Draco to say his mother bought it for him for Christmas or he ordered it by owl in front of Ron and Harry who were impersonating Crabbe and Goyle. Draco was keen to find out who was the heir, so one could easily imagine him prowling around in the dark of night.

Issue 3: The rule “there is no royalty in the Wizarding world,” should have been stated long before book 6 – perhaps when Harry first hears the name, “Lord Voldemort” from Hagrid. It was incredibly frustrating trying to figure out what the title “Half-Blood Prince” meant ahead of time – which then became quite a letdown.

Issue 4: Hagrid was expelled by the actions of Tom Riddle, but there was debate as to whether he knew that was the former identity of Lord Voldemort. At the end of book 2, Hagrid could tell them in apology that Dumbledore told him not to bandy the name about.

Issue 5: I assumed that the Sword of Gryffindor was in Dumbledore’s office before Harry got it. But as someone said, there was no sign of it prior to Harry getting it from the hat, either when Dumbledore interviewed Riddle or questioned Harry. Hermione in book 7 seems to understand that it didn’t just come from Dumbledore or his office, but rather it appeared to Harry through magic at his time of need. We could have used a word from Dumbledore saying he didn’t send it, it hadn’t been seen in sixty years or so (before Riddle came to Hogwarts), and that there were just a few known ways that it might appear to a worthy Gryffindor in need from wherever it was hidden, and the hat was one of them. Or simply write that Harry saw it in his office when Dumbledore questioned him there.

Book 4:
Point 1: Someone (Sirius?) should have told Harry that Durmstrang was where Grindelwald went to school to better put him on guard against Krum and Karkaroff, just like he learned Voldemort was in Slytherin and Dumbledore in Gryffindor.

Point 2: J.K.Rowling was surprised that the question fans voted for answering was, “How does the Order of the Phoenix send secret messages?” She wrote that Dumbledore sends something silver (a bird?) out of his wand to Hagrid and then Hagrid comes running. Clearly the paragraph in question was poorly written, since Harry realizes it’s a Patronus but not the reader. Harry should have asked or thought, “Was that Dumbledore’s Patronus?” When I first went back to examine this I thought my error was because a lot was happening and it was during a page turn. The first thing that Dumbledore says to Hagrid is to go fetch Karkaroff and inform him his student was attacked. This made me think the luminous silver was no more significant than shooting sparks to get Hagrid’s attention. To be more clear Dumbledore could have said something like, “Hagrid, my message was to fetch Karkaroff, please do so immediately,” when Hagrid first shows up.

Point 3: Moody’s eye can see through Harry’s Invisibility Cloak, while it’s supposed to resist any spell meant to break its concealment, like it did for “accio cloak” in book 7. Clearly the fake Moody is not just looking at Harry’s leg in the step, since he sees him mouthing words and waving his arms. However there is no indication that this cloak is any better than Moody’s/Crouch’s own cloak. Obviously the map distracted him, but if it were superior, wouldn’t he have found a way to swap his cloak for Potter’s? Likewise someone mentioned that Dumbledore could see Harry under the cloak in book 1, but I think the best explanation was that he could see the heat coming off him, like the snake did for Mr. Weasley, or hear the noise of his breath and footfalls.

Solution: Mine would be that Dumbledore having investigated the cloak, figured out how to get around the magical protection. From the Pensieve it seems that Moody lost his eye after Voldemort fell, so I think it would have been excellent had Dumbledore mentioned he helped create Moody’s magical eye at the end of this book.

Book 5:
Problem: Sirius says, from what he discovered later his brother Regulus was a Death Eater, wanted out, and was killed, likely on Voldemort’s orders. This is inconsistent with his fate in book 7. If you want to keep Regulus’s fate as written, then Sirius should have said no one knew what became of him because they never found the body, but they were sure he was dead. It would take really powerful magic and be infernally complicated to fake someone’s death in the Wizarding world. Note: Dumbledore offers to fake Draco’s death, and he’d be the one powerful enough to do it. If Dumbledore faked people’s death, (perhaps because Snape is ordered to kill them), we don’t learn about it in book 7.

BOOK 7:
There is no rule that says characters must not be stupid. In past books, the characters make mistakes for instance if they had only asked someone, “Who was Tom Riddle?” Of course then you wouldn’t have the Chamber of Secrets story. But there’s a lot of stupidity in this book, Lord Voldemort being the Chief Stupid Person.

Not a revenge book. It’s clearly important to consider that this is not a book about revenge, or doing unto others as they’ve done to you and yours. So any changes have to keep this in mind. I posted elsewhere that the only thing approaching “revenge” I saw was that Hagrid clobbered Macnair in the end. So many people write that they wished such-and-such would have gotten even with their enemy. Even Harry didn’t technically kill Voldemort, or use a reflection/rebound spell.

“The source we discussed.” This line disturbed me for half of the book, up until Godric’s Hollow, thinking it meant someone was a traitor or was/would be Imperiused. This created tension, but it also made me question characters when they were acting oddly: Dudley asking where Harry was going, Lupin wanting to leave his wife and child to join them, and Ron saying that they should give Voldemort “respect” by not saying his name. Was this just me or was it a mistake? I guess it depends what the author wants you to feel – suspicion or empathy or a mix. The one thing about Hedwig’s death is that I never had to be suspicious of her.

Wandlore:
There are so many things about wands and wandlore in this book and series that need explanation. I think I started another thread just about wands, and went into it in depth. I’m listing these basic questions as statements here just to be thorough, so please don’t respond to them in this thread.
A: Hagrid’s wand was snapped. It works somewhat.
B: Voldemort got his wand back after Godric’s Hollow.
C: Bellatrix got her wand back after Azkaban.
D: Fleur had her wand custom-made with Veela hair (likely in France).

CHAPTER 4:
Clearly this is one of most exciting and thrilling chapters in the whole book! But it has some problems that upset me from the first read that should have been fixed ahead of publication.

Stupid Moody: In book 5 we see how he gets Harry from Privet Drive and to Headquarters. For instance he uses a lookout and waits for the all clear, while scanning the sky with his magic eye. He then performs the Disillusionment Charm on Harry, and has him ride his Firebolt. He does none of this in book 7. Though they’d come in under Disillusionment, the seven Potters leaving weren’t. Let’s say that two D.E.s were normally on duty (like later at Grimmauld Place). Obviously Moody had to get his group in and out quickly without being spotted before they could alert other Death Eaters.

I couldn’t believe it - Moody gives away the plan to everyone in the kitchen! Clearly, each pair should know where they are going, but not where others (particularly Harry) are headed. That way if they are turned then they can’t give away Harry’s destination. Next, they shouldn’t know they’ll be taking a Portkey until they actually make it to their target site. And then, how much should the folks there know about the plan. Should they know the night? If so, then shouldn’t Tom and Andomeda have been on guard outside to help the pair that shows up? They see them fall in the garden but hadn’t taken part in the battle, or it seems prevent their impact with the ground like Dumbledore did for Harry in book 3. Finally, they use stuffed owls to imitate Hedwig instead of something like the Gemino Charm. My thought from that moment was that one Death Eater would lock on to the Firebolt and another to an owl which would lead them both to Harry in the sidecar.

Personally, this whole plan smells. It might have been safer had Harry put on his cloak and hid in the trunk of the car with the luggage and then used Polyjuice Potion to take over for the driver. Then he’d try to drive to his safe house. There was no indication his relatives faced any trouble leaving.

Moody’s Eye:
Now in this book he believed that Privet Drive was under observation by Death Eaters, but didn’t give indication that he’d spotted any and actually rose right up into a circle of about 30 – probably Voldemort’s entire circle and everyone they had recruited or Imperiused! As we know, Moody’s eye was top notch to see through Harry’s cloak and should have seen Death Eaters or their heat-signatures in the air. Moody could have said in the kitchen that he was nervous because he hadn’t spotted even one Death Eater.

The explanation I have is that they somehow had the house under observation by other means than being under Disillusionment Charms in the sky. So what happened was that at the key moment someone sent the signal and all the Death Eaters immediately Apparated in the sky around them. Now if the seven Potters had been under Disillusionment, then Voldemort would have broken the charm and suddenly all seven were revealed. That would be a good reason why Harry wasn’t under his cloak.

No broom for Ron: Harry has a Firebolt, purportedly the best racing broom in the world, with anti-jinx charms that likely his Nimbus 2000 never had. Yet no one rides it! Bill and Harry were Seekers, Fred and George were beaters and Ron was a Keeper. After two reads I still hadn’t caught on that Ron left riding behind Tonks on the same broomstick! Harry should have smirked right back at him. Let’s say George takes it. This then could explain why Snape follows George – since bitter as Snape is, he’s sure the real Harry would ride his Firebolt. I still don’t get why else he’d risk blowing his cover merely to save Lupin of all people. Then we find out if Snape and his companion could curse a Firebolt like Quirrell/Voldemort did to the Nimbus 2000 in book one. So in my re-write George is on the Firebolt and the Death Eater in front of Snape flicks his wand which causes the Firebolt to pitch up, slow down and shudder. So in this version by casting Sectumsempra, Snape is not saving Lupin from the Killing Curse, he’s saving George-Harry (or is it Harry-George?) from capture. Lupin grabs George and they fly on, but lose the Firebolt to the Death Eater who had all his concentration on it.

CHAPTERS 4-8:
The Trace:
Clearly there’s a conflict between what was said in this book and what Dumbledore told Harry about Dobby’s Hovering Charm and the Riddle murders. The only way out of this I could think of would be if Voldemort didn’t kill his father and grandparents directly but instead Imperiused Morfin, who did it at his command. The Imperius Curse wouldn’t tip off the Ministry because it occurred in the Gaunt house and they wouldn’t know immediately about the Killing Curse because it was done by a wizard of age. It all still seems a bit odd. Clearly the Ministry (i.e. Scrimgeour) knew where Harry was hiding, so wouldn’t Voldemort have sent more forces to the wedding or not broken the anti-disapparation spell so Harry would be trapped? I thought I had more to say about the Trace but I don’t want to think any more about it right now.

The book about Horcruxes:
I thought summoning a forbidden Horcrux book from Dumbledore’s office on her last day was a really stupid way for Hermione to learn all about them. It was as silly as simply asking Madam Pince about Horcruxes and her just handing over the right book. I can think of several ways for them to get the book, each better than the one before.

Version One: A former headmaster/headmistress visits her in someone else’s painting and tells her there’s a book in Dumbledore’s library for Harry and how to get in and take it. Of course this means she walks right by Gryffindor’s sword, assuming the portraits don’t tell her to take it as well. Would they know its importance? Perhaps not. Is Dumbledore’s truly asleep until a new headmaster is assigned by the governors, as Snape must have been? I say yes.

Version Two: As prefect Hermione knows that Dumbledore has a private library and decides to break into it and steal the book. She then tells Ginny how she did it, so that’s how she, Neville and Luna break into Snape’s office for the Sword.

Version Three: Before they stakeout the Ministry, our trio explore Knockturn Alley looking for a forbidden book on Horcruxes. This would be a tense minor adventure. If Sirius’s story about his brother had been true: that he wanted out and was hunted down and killed, he could have been killed in Knockturn Alley searching for a book to tell him how to destroy the Horcrux!

Version Four: At the end of the book the trio break into Hogwarts to get Gryffindor’s Sword thus allowing the ending to take place there and a Horcrux to be in a better hiding place than the Room of Hidden Things, “right under Dumbledore’s nose.”

CHAPTERS 9 & 17:
The Fidelius Charm:
Mr. Weasley deduces that with the death of Dumbledore they are all now Secret Keepers. I don’t think he knows what he’s talking about. Furthermore they never test this assumption by bringing in someone new. Supposedly it’s not safe there because Snape can now tell the Death Eaters. But Moody has put a Tongue-tying Curse so that Snape (or anyone entering) can’t reveal the Secret. After the Ministry falls it seems that only the Fidelius Charm can protect them from the full might of Voldemort and the Ministry, otherwise they’d break through the defenses like at the wedding and other protected places.

So you have to choose what’s correct. In one interview before the book, J.K.R. said the Secret dies with the Secret-Keeper, meaning the house is safe as long as its Headquarters. In another she says that Snape goes to mourn there immediately after killing Dumbledore. That would put his memories in the Pensieve out of sequence (see below). In that case Moody would not have had time to enter Headquarters and put in place the Tongue-tying Curse.

I think the Fidelius Charm would be stronger with Dumbledore dead than alive. Presumably his soul took the Secret with it and the imprint in his portrait wouldn’t be able to blab the Secret, like he did in front of the Dursleys. That, coupled with the defenses put on the house would be enough to keep the Death Eaters and Ministry at bay. So even though Yaxley was left on the doorstep, I don’t think that would cause him to learn the Secret. In book 3 they say You-Know-Who could look in the Potter’s window and not see anyone with the Secret working. If Yaxley summoned another Death Eater to the doorstep, he’d still have to get inside, and then be severely disoriented if the Secret was in place. He’d leave and report seeing no sign of any members of the Order of the Phoenix having lived there. I think our trio were just dead wrong and could have gone back there anytime. Clearly Kreacher got away O.K. From a plot standpoint, I think she wanted or needed them to rough it. Stupid?

PS: At Godric’s Hollow, Voldemort’s reminiscence seems to imply that Wormtail didn’t just tell him the Secret of the Potters or write him a note, he’d actually undone the Fidelius or freed the Secret from his soul. That’s probably why the house could be seen and Hagrid could rescue Baby-Harry. Although since Hermione didn’t enter, and the epilogue didn’t say whether he took up residence there, this is unclear.

CHAPTER 13:
It took me until yesterday to figure out that Harry's chapter 13 enemy in this book is the Ministry of Magic, (a.k.a. the government).

Percy Weasley:
We meet up with Percy in this chapter and near the end. I think it would have been very clever and tense if Harry or Ron had seen something pass between Percy and his father in the elevator as part of his reconciliation or passing information to the Order. I had been hopeful that Percy would turn up for his brother’s wedding. Had he done so we might wonder whose side he was on, and whether he was helping the Death Eaters. People were speculating whether there’d be a traitor this time, and I was all for fingers to point at him, especially being in CHAPTER 13! As it was, when he finally showed up in the end I felt it rather contrived and didn’t appreciate it. Had his father vouched for him, saying he’d turned back ages ago, we could have said, “Aha! That explains what he was doing in the elevator.”

Mundungus, Umbridge, the Locket and the Ministry:
I had hoped that at least one of our trio would have to venture to Azkaban (where Mundungus had been sent) in order to learn from him where he’d stashed the locket. Since Mundungus’s part to play was on the night at Privet Drive, this idea is clearly O.U.T. - out.

I was somewhat disappointed that Umbridge took the locket from Mundungus. It seems contrived to bring her back into the story this way, but nevermind. What I kept thinking was, how odd that they’d invade the Ministry to get it back; wouldn’t her home do? She wasn’t very good at keeping Nifflers out of her office or dealing with Hogwartians (gag-the name), so her home should be more vulnerable. It would be easier to imagine them breaking into her home and then waiting for her to return. That would be perilous enough. Breaking into the Ministry, while interesting, seems like breaking into the CIA: wasn’t that a Mission Impossible story? Clearly the point was to show that the Ministry was the enemy even if it makes our trio seem rather stupid.

Now once they failed to get her at home, then she’d be on guard and then they’d have to go in there to get it! This makes more sense.

CHAPTER 14:
Ron’s new “respect” for Voldemort:
I didn’t get this, it made me suspicious of Ron for awhile and it’s never explained properly how he knew about the taboo. “Respect” is the term the Snatchers use once they catch them after using Voldemort’s name. But somehow after leaving the Ministry, Ron knows that something’s up with the name. Does he catch something on the wind? I’d rather he said he overheard something in the Ministry about it. Had Ron not used the term “respect” and just insisted on avoiding the name, forcing Hermione and Harry to promise not to use it, then it would have sounded more like the Ron we knew.

CHAPTER 19:
The Silver Doe:
Didn’t anyone in the Order tell them that Snape’s Patronus was a doe? How stupid is that! They had to have known. The reason Sirius and the others showed up at the Ministry was because Snape informed them (Dumbledore hinted by Patronus!) Harry thought Sirius was there but was going to check the forest for him. At the beginning of book 6, when Snape said Tonks’s Patronus looked weak, she could have retorted about his, “tsk-tsk, dear Snape.” Speaking of which when did Harry learn his mother’s Patronus was a doe, too?

The Sword of Gryffindor:
I think I’d rather have had them invade Hogwarts to get the sword than for this drama Snape set up. Supposedly, Harry sees no one except the doe, follows it and then strips and jumps in the water. Meanwhile, Ron sees a doe, follows it, and sees Harry jump in the water. Ron doesn’t holler for Harry, Harry doesn’t see or hear Ron. Were there two doe Patronuses? One for Harry, one for Ron.

CHAPTERS various:
Protego:
Previously this was a shield charm that could block simple to moderate spells, and even reverse some of them. However the purple fire spell that hit Hermione in book 5 was too strong, and barely deflected it. If it were me, I’d have looked up other, more powerful shield charms in my sixth year, perhaps from the Prince’s book. Clearly, the Order members who were ferociously dueling in the Department of Mysteries weren’t using Protego. In book 7 their shield charm takes on the added power of an actual force-field that can block people. Unfortunately it isn’t given a new name.

CHAPTER 23:
Malfoy Manor:
All this time, weeks and months even, our trio is thinking about getting Horcruxes. Meanwhile, they learn from Harry and the Wireless that Voldemort is abroad, as they say in Britain. Not once did they mention going after the snake!
“Where do you think he left it, Harry?”
“I once saw him forcing Draco to use the Cruciatus Curse on someone.”
“That’s it! The snake’s at Malfoy’s!”
“But that’s got to be as well protected as any house of the Order, like Sirius’s.”
“Wait a moment, Ron’s dad raided the place. Twice. He’d know the layout and what defenses they had in place back then.”
“But there’s no way we can contact Dad; you said he was under observation.”
“This tent is from his old partner, Perkins, maybe he’d help us.”
“But if we get the snake, wouldn’t You-Know-Who suspect we’re after Horcruxes?”
“Maybe – maybe not. Perhaps he’ll think it was our revenge for Godric’s Hollow.”
It doesn’t really matter how far they get in planning. Getting caught by the Snatchers (or the Malfoys) would be unfortunate, but it would get them inside. The story from this point would then seem less chancy and contrived. Robbing Draco of his wand and thereby gaining the mastery of the Elder Wand for the finale would then seem more inevitable than an accident. It also doesn’t matter whether they barely escape without even killing the snake. The plot could continue from there and make as much sense as it does presently.
“Blast it all to h---! That’s the second time I’ve been near the snake and didn’t kill it!”

CHAPTER 31:
The Room of Hidden Things:
This use of the Room of Requirement was brilliant in book 6. The idea that Voldemort would hide his Horcrux in there was incredibly stupid in book 7. How could imagine that students, house-elves and faculty didn’t know and couldn’t learn about this room? Harry’s first impression is that generations of Hogwart students have been hiding stuff there. I’m sorry, but it is beyond belief that Voldemort would expect no one else to find it. Clearly the Chamber of Secrets was hidden from everyone else until Harry came along. I’d have thought that Dumbledore would check that out for Horcruxes after Harry and Ginny’s ordeal. Furthermore, Draco had used the Room of Requirement to repair the cabinet and bring in the Death Eaters. He HAD to have heard the story, either when he was threatening Draco with death or after Dumbledore’s death.

Now if he thought it didn’t matter because people could use the room and never find his Horcrux, then you’d have a different story. After saying “no way” to the idea that Harry had ahold of a Horcrux without knowing it in book 6, I began to consider. Suppose that Voldemort had set up the room and the diadem so that only he could get it. Then people could come and go, spend months searching, haul everything they could see out, or burn the entire contents with fiendfyre and still not find it or destroy it. Yet Harry laid hands on it right away. I imagine that after putting on the wig he needed or “required” something to put on top of it and the room, sensing Voldemort’s soul in his scar, offered it up to Harry. Then when he looked for it again on broomstick it was chucked up in the air just for him. If the room was doing the protection for him, then this would better explain why it seemed lightly defended. Of course no one put it on their head to try out whether it was cursed like the Gaunt Ring.

CHAPTER 33:
The Prince’s Tale:
Some of these memories don’t match what has gone before.

Number One: Severus is tricked by Sirius into going through the passage beneath the Whomping Willow. James saves his life by pulling him back just as he sees the werewolf at the end of the tunnel. Dumbledore makes him keep it quiet. Yet here we have him telling Lily his theory after being rescued. Furthermore, Lily says she knows about the secret passage and the rescue. How can that be? As far as we know, no one except the Marauders, Severus, Dumbledore and Madam Pomfrey know about the passage. Did James tell her? It would make more sense if James was bragging he saved Snape’s life but didn’t say how, and Severus was forbidden to say anything about Lupin, so couldn’t answer Lily.

Number Two: The day Ron is poisoned Hagrid reports overhearing Snape and Dumbledore. In Severus’s memory Dumbledore asks him if he’s going to give him more detentions because he’ll soon have spent more time in detention than out. As of this meeting the last detention Harry had was for mouthing off to Snape in class when Snape was teaching them silent spelling. Before that it was the first couple weeks of term with Umbridge his 5th year. Only later after he attacks Malfoy with Sectumsempra does Snape put him in detention every Saturday until the end of term.

Number Three: Severus is talking to Dumbledore’s portrait before becoming Headmaster. Some explanation is needed, like “Hurry, McGonagall is coming; take the portkey back out.”

Number Four: I couldn’t understand why Snape would be weeping after saving Lupin’s life and cutting George-Harry’s ear off with Sectumsempra while tearing up the photo of Harry and throwing it on the floor. In an interview, Jo explains that Snape went to Grimmauld Place immediately after Dumbledore’s death. This memory then is out of order.

CHAPTER 36:
Harry can do what he wants with the Elder Wand, the Resurrection Stone and the Invisibility Cloak. But if he expects to die unbeaten and the Elder Wand to lose its potency he’s stupid. In her interview, the author said that Harry went on to training as an Auror and revolutionized that office. All it would take is one disarming spell or someone to stun him and take his wand for the Elder Wand to get a new master. He’d then likely have to defeat him back to be its Master again. He practically shouted in front of fifty people that he was the master of the Elder Wand so the suggestion that no one would ever know is not credible. Personally I don’t think the Elder Wand was unbeatable if Dumbledore could defeat Grindelwald in a duel. I admire Gorgorovitch’s idea to learn from it how to make better wands. Then there could be a dozen, then hundreds, and in time thousands of wands of higher caliber. The Elder Wand was dangerous because it was one of a kind.

That’s about all the PRESUMPTION I have for now. Thank you for your attention.

Book 1: I found the movie had done a brilliant and faithful job of bringing the book to screen. There were a few irritating changes that bothered me more with time: Harry’s hair wasn’t sticking up and Hermione’s wasn’t bushy. We learned several books on that “no spell can bring back the dead.” So Voldemort’s line, “We can bring them back,” was out of place in the film. I had hoped that in a second edition Dumbledore would say the rule early on with the Mirror of Erised. But as we now know that wasn’t a firm rule of the HP universe. Still, someone like Ron or Hermione could have said it. The movie did have a couple scenes that “fixed” ones from the book.

.

That line ''we can bring them back'', they weren't insisting that voldemort could bring back his parents if they wanted too, they were just showing how voldemort was trying to persuade harry to give him the stone, by getting to him emotionally. Any child who had lost their parents would easily want to see them again, voldemort was pushing that to get the stone off harry. It wasn't really out fo plave as much as if they were insisting that voldemort would have brought them back if harry had given them the stone.

There's a couple things to say about disappointment.

I expected one or more major characters I liked to die in the attempt to destroy Voldemort. Clearly I was not disappointed that none of the trio, or the six friends, or Mrs. Weasley or Hagrid had perished. It was however very "lucky."

I was not disappointed to read an original story in the form of the hallows.

I am not disappointed that my every trivia question wasn't answered as well as all the stuff that must have happened after the victory.

I AM disappointed by logical inconsistencies or omissions critical to the plot. To give an example from book 6: Harry and Ron knew that Draco got the Hand of Glory, but WE are never told ahead of time! The two vanishing cabinets are a pair, but there are no prior clues - their descriptions are not identical or even similar!

In book 7 (and thus the series) there are a number of things that should have been cleared up with a comment. I submitted a (way too long) thread discussing them, so that I could put my books away and move on. I'll check back to see if it was accepted. I submitted one thread previously on wands and the problems such as how did Voldemort and the prisoners of Azkaban get their wands back?

I saw another person's thread stating they were upset that the trio was constantly escaping danger by a hair. I can see their point, but I'm not too fussed. Contrivance bothers me more. That is a series of accidents or events set up to get a predetermined outcome. For example, Harry HAD to defeat Draco and take his wand to become the Master of the Elder Wand. But it happened so accidentally! He HAD to be there to experience Bella's fear that her vault had been broken into. The trio could have been planning to invade Malfoy Manor to get the snake anyway, then their capture and the turn of events wouldn't have seemed so ACCIDENTAL.

STUPIDITY is another thing I detest. I felt it was overused as a plot device. Voldemort was really stupid hiding the Horcrux in the Room of Hidden Things among other mistakes. Clearly people can make mistakes or make bad choices or even act on ignorance, but one after another after another to let Harry win? Moody's plan to rescue Harry was stupid. There's no way around that. We'd already seen a preview of Chapter 4, in book 5, and the comparison is stark.

We can come up with explanations for some details left out, but others are clearly wrong, like Snape's memories. I counted at least four details that didn't jive with what happened previously, including one memory that was out of sequence according to JKR's interview.

What's sad is that a few lines of clarity or minor changes could have fixed so many odd, confusing things as well as errors. I can't help thinking that someone proofed the words and sentences, but thought the author and her work were so "perfect" that the story didn't need any changes or clarifications.

And do you really think it would be possible to tie every subplot up in Deathly Hallows? I think that would be unrealistic and I'm glad we weren't told everything - it would make for some boring storytelling.

I'm not sure how to respond to this. It was possible to wrap up every subplot in the six previous books; why would it be impossible here? But if you find being told the entire story boring, I don't think we have a common footing to continue the discussion.

Okay, my own personal view on Draco is that he served his purpose. JK never intended Draco to do anything more than what he was given to do in HBP and to also buy time in the Malfoy's Manor by pretending to not be sure if they had captured Harry or not. What did you expect to happen at "The Battle of Hogwarts"? Draco suddenly saying "I'm not going to be a Death Eater any more" and going to fight against Voldemort? Draco is a Slytherin - Slytherin's will do anything to save their own necks and that's what we see him do. At the end of the day, yes, Draco does have doubts about where his loyalty lies, but he sure as hell is too scared to act on those doubts.

If Ms. Rowling never intended Draco to change, why start the transformation? Why put it in the book at all? Draco was not interested in saving his own neck when he lost the will to kill Dumbledore. Draco was not interested in saving his own neck when he intentionally did not identify Harry to Bellatrix, an act that clearly would have led to recognition by Lord Voldemort.

Do you think Umbridge was really needed in DH? I didn't have a problem with her being used again, but I really didn't like how she was used. It was like she was being "milked for all she was worth", only added in to make some more money (and I know she wasn't.) Maybe I'm alone in this, but I really didn't like that she was in it for about five minutes, and the way she was used. It just felt odd, like she was thrown in there for no reason. I know it's wierd, and I can't really describe why I feel this way, but does anyone else feel the same?

I'm not sure how to respond to this. It was possible to wrap up every subplot in the six previous books; why would it be impossible here? But if you find being told the entire story boring, I don't think we have a common footing to continue the discussion.

Okay, I think you misunderstand me. This, being the final book, there are many unanswered questions, and many people were expecting these answers to be answered. Of course I don't think being told the entire story to be boring. Grr...I'm finding it hard to express what I mean. What I mean is that this book is different to all the others. There have been little subplots that have been unanswered until now, many theories made and I don't think it would have possible for Jo to have told us everything in a book without making it slightly tedious to read.

If Ms. Rowling never intended Draco to change, why start the transformation? Why put it in the book at all? Draco was not interested in saving his own neck when he lost the will to kill Dumbledore. Draco was not interested in saving his own neck when he intentionally did not identify Harry to Bellatrix, an act that clearly would have led to recognition by Lord Voldemort.

She needed to show that Draco as a poor boy in a mess. We had seen him as Harry's enemy. He'd talked the talk and now it was time for him to walk the walk. No, Draco wasn't interested in saving his own neck when he couldn't kill Dumbledore, but that was because he realised he couldn't kill him. He couldn't murder - yes, he's a bully and sometimes a foul person, but killing someone was a completely other thing. If this character development hadn't been made in HBP, and Draco could be a heartless killer, Draco would have been the one to kill Dumbledore. Then we wouldn't have had the whole "Is Snape Good or Evil?" debates.

I think I'm going to take a break from this thread for a while. I may re-read the book once more to fully gather my thoughts. :D

Nope, can't say I was disapointed with DH except for the missing 19 years.......and there doesn't look like there will be a book 8, 9...........!

Do you think Umbridge was really needed in DH? I didn't have a problem with her being used again, but I really didn't like how she was used. It was like she was being "milked for all she was worth", only added in to make some more money (and I know she wasn't.) Maybe I'm alone in this, but I really didn't like that she was in it for about five minutes, and the way she was used. It just felt odd, like she was thrown in there for no reason. I know it's wierd, and I can't really describe why I feel this way, but does anyone else feel the same?

That's a new one. The common complaint regarding DH Umbridge as I hear it is that she wasn't used enough. For my part, I liked where she was in the book. Someone had to head up the Muggle-born Registration Commission, and there she was, ready-made. Saves the trouble of inventing a new face. That the face was so recognizable was a plot tool as well, because it made it easier and more believable for Mundungus to be able to tell Harry and friends where the locket wound up.

To come and reply to some of the people who said they are dissappointed with the Deathly Hallows. I don't really see it as a dissappointment when you look at the book as a singular story it is quite a great piece of work. As Jo said herself some of us more orthodox fans will not be satisfied until we know the name of Harry's great-grandfathers, uncles, sister-in-laws, next door neighbours cat :lol:. There are some unanswered questions left about the series mainly about James and Lily's history. I think Jo left this purposly if she tied everything in a neat package with a pretty bow. Where would that leave us. Those of us who love picking apart every last detail of this series and discussing it on wonderful forums like this. No where thats where. These little unanswered questions leave us scope to let the creative juices flow by writing fanfictions or discussing theories in threads. Deathly Hallow's was not a disappointment just a very worthy end to a wonderful series which hopefully will keep us entertained for years to come.

My only expectation of DH was one i have every time I open any book: I expect a good read. DH was not one. Why?

Well first off i don't care about unanswered Qs, I like room for speculation. Secondly, Ootp was the only one i was truly hyped up for before the release. Since then I've been too busy with school to care much before actually holding the book in my hands. Lastly my disappointment did not arise from my predictions coming true or not, I mean Sirius' death was the most bitter moment in the books since i had to say bye to my fave character, but this unpleasant turn of events in no way made OotP a disappointment. I find it rather funny that ppl just assume that things like hype and a few unanswered Qs would ruin a great book for others. Sure people would be annoyed, but disappointed? Nah. If ppl find DH disappointing than they have issues with the book, not with themselves. It's rather appalling to claim if you don't like it than you're the problem. I could just as easly say that the ones who loved DH are simply bias HP fans who will eat up anything with HP on it.

Anyway I was disappointed with DH myself because it was boring, and it wasn't just the middle. Really after Harry's convo with Ddore I was really bored. I couldn't care less for the elder wand twist (too much suspension of belief there) or Harry. I mean who cares about a hero who is assured of his victory, a hero who isn't really facing a conflict at all....just going through the motions. Yawn. And what happened to the magical world? Nothing. No growth. Yawn. Oh goody Harry grows older and has kids, eventhough he publicly proclaimed he is the owner of a wand with a bloody history....funny how no one came to hunt him down and take the wand (suspension of belief anyone?). Double Yawn.

If DH was not a HP book I would have chucked it in the trash can, but since it is I will keep it as part of the collection, thou I will never again read it. Seriously a book with 2D characters and no significant development by the end is totally not worth my time.

But thats what I mean about wrapping everything up. If we are told noone came after Harry then that would be boring and if we were told that people did come after him we would be upset that there were no details. We are seeing the entire series through Harry's eyes and during this part of the series his mentor is dead, he has no clue what he has to do and has to break up with Ginny his only bit of normality in his life. He's depressed and scared and lost of course he's going to be a bit monotone for want of a better word. Now I admit DH wasn't my favourite of the whole series but calling it rubbish is a bit harsh. Jo had a lot of things to answer in one book DD's history, Godric's Hollow, the Horcruxes, Ron and Hermione's relationship, Harry and Ginny's relationship, Snape's History, Snapes relationship with Lily, Petunia's history the list goes on. If she went into all these things in the detail some people wanted her to then we would have had the longest book in the world and we would have been waiting another 10 years for her to finish it. Also if there was any development of the more secondary characters in Hogwarts then it would be so confusing, jumping from Hogwarts to the hunt to the Burrow to Shell Cottage to Grimmauld Place and back again. She concentrated on the main 3 characters as it has been from the start, Harry, Ron and Hermione. She left it a nice way in my opinion Harry had the things he wanted a family and some form of normality.If anyone cared for this fictional character then we should be happy that he had all the things he wanted. This in my opinon is disappointment in enough information as I said earlier alot of us won't be satisfied until we know absolutely everything that there is to know about Harry's world. unforunatly nobdy knows everything.

A great example. We found out a bit more about what happened.



Ooops. My bad :blush:. Why do I post in the mornings when I'm not awake?! I must edit my previous post. :D



Okay, just went on dictionary look-up just to make sure I fully understood the term "inane". I wouldn't say that he lacked substance, however, I would agree that to a point he was inane. He was foolish to do some of the things that he did.

He was getting old and senile :D.

"Why would JKR, who has shown previously not to waste story-space with unimportant plot threads, choose to spend a lot of time on non-verbal spells if they weren't meant to be important?"


I agree with much of what Dan wrote, but on the quote above, I do not. Having re-read the series recently, the amount of wasted space in the books stands out in my mind as one of the flaws that editors probably let slide after book 3 or so. The success of the series, I suppose, gives the writer more leeway with editors who would otherwise cut the book down to the appropriate, focused best. However, since JKR had the pre-conceived TIME for each book (one school year) and apparantly one pre-conceived plot for that time line, she had to Ssssstttttrrrrreeeeeettttcccchhhh that one plot line to be as long as a school year, even if it made Voldemort look incredibly stupid, unmotivated or lazy (book 5 is especially guilty of this).

So, we get the "filler" material which (love it or hate it), is not critical to forwarding the story, such as:

S.P.E.W.
The Yule Ball
Occlumency lessons
Camping
Snogging

It's unfortunate that she decided on making each book one school year long without just running the plot naturally and letting time flow best for the story.

Well, well... here we go again.

Anyone who still believes that this thread is for general negativism about Jo's writing, go back and read post # 1.

One thing, the forgiving Snape part. Without knowing what went on behind the stage it's weird for me to see that Harry forgave Snape so fast after seeing his memories. Even if Snape had feelings for his mother, it's very unlikely for me that someone forgets about the mistreatment of a person within seconds and starts to understand them, just because it turned out that this person liked his mother. That's not understandable for me.

Another thing is the lack of background story of other characters. For example Neville. When the trio meets him for the first time, he turned into a Action Hero. But it would've been good to witnessed his change at least a bit. Often people change their characters and step on the stage and they tell their story and every things OK and we don't see how and when it happened ourselves.

One thing, the forgiving Snape part. Without knowing what went on behind the stage it's weird for me to see that Harry forgave Snape so fast after seeing his memories. Even if Snape had feelings for his mother, it's very unlikely for me that someone forgets about the mistreatment of a person within seconds and starts to understand them, just because it turned out that this person liked his mother. That's not understandable for me.

Another thing is the lack of background story of other characters. For example Neville. When the trio meets him for the first time, he turned into a Action Hero. But it would've been good to witnessed his change at least a bit. Often people change their characters and step on the stage and they tell their story and every things OK and we don't see how and when it happened ourselves.

Well, we actually did get a glimpse of his change. Back in Order of the Phoenix--his work with the D.A.--and again in Half-Blood Prince--he and Luna were the only D.A. members who came to Harry's aid to watch the castle while Harry and Dumbledore were gone. Determination, fueled quite a bit by his desire for revenge against Bellatrix, and then a show of pure bravery that had nothing to do with said revenge. And in the book after that, we have a changed man.

One thing, the forgiving Snape part. Without knowing what went on behind the stage it's weird for me to see that Harry forgave Snape so fast after seeing his memories. Even if Snape had feelings for his mother, it's very unlikely for me that someone forgets about the mistreatment of a person within seconds and starts to understand them, just because it turned out that this person liked his mother. That's not understandable for me.

Another thing is the lack of background story of other characters. For example Neville. When the trio meets him for the first time, he turned into a Action Hero. But it would've been good to witnessed his change at least a bit. Often people change their characters and step on the stage and they tell their story and every things OK and we don't see how and when it happened ourselves.

Maybe it was because he was facing death, and it was stupid of him to hate a guy who really had an awful life and made terrible choices. Although i'm not saying he wasn't a git when came to Harry and a lot of students more.

Maybe it was because he was facing death, and it was stupid of him to hate a guy who really had an awful life and made terrible choices. Although i'm not saying he wasn't a git when came to Harry and a lot of students more.

Harry never said he wasn't a git, either. He just said he was brave. One don't negate the other, y'know...

Everyone here seems to have something negative to say about DH! I've got to say though that I loved the book, I'm delighted there are things that are unanswered for us because that means that there is still some questions out there for us to get answers for or to try & answer ourselves.

One thing, the forgiving Snape part. Without knowing what went on behind the stage it's weird for me to see that Harry forgave Snape so fast after seeing his memories. Even if Snape had feelings for his mother, it's very unlikely for me that someone forgets about the mistreatment of a person within seconds and starts to understand them, just because it turned out that this person liked his mother. That's not understandable for me.

The great thing about Harry's character is that he is compassionate. Snape had put him through hell during his time at Hogwarts, Harry couldn't stand to be around him after Sirius' death etc, but he had given Snape that chance and forgave him. This is the same person who had given a person like Voldemort a chance ("try for some remorse"). I suppose what Harry saw in Snape was the risk he had undertaken for him. It wasn't the fact that Snape had feelings for his mother - this actually clarified Snape's behavior towards Harry more than anything else, which I believe was unjustifiable - but that he had risked his neck to help him.

Everyone here seems to have something negative to say about DH! I've got to say though that I loved the book, I'm delighted there are things that are unanswered for us because that means that there is still some questions out there for us to get answers for or to try & answer ourselves.

Don't worry, you're not alone. I've been in here stubbornly proclaiming my undying love of the book since the Version 1 thread. :lol:

I have been reading this thread since v1 and I have been thinking about what exactly I didn't like about DH.

First of all, I want to point out that I read every book of the series only once before DH. This forum is the only HP forum I've ever been to and I only came here after finishing DH. So up until about four weeks ago, I didn't know anything about the shipping wars or theories like "Harry is a horcrux", "McGonagall is evil", "Sirius isn't dead and neither is Dumbledore" or any other speculations. And I also didn't speculate much myself. I only had one theory (that Snape wasn't evil) and that came true. And even if it hadn't I could've lived with it.

So when DH came out, all I expected was a good read and good closure to the series I've been reading for seven years. I don't think that either of these expectations were asking too much.

About the good read, it was fine. It wasn't the best of the series, but not the worst one either. However, it also strongly - strongly - reminded me of why I don't normally read Fantasy. The arbitrary change of rules however it fits the story (e.g. Fidelius Charm, Parsletongue) and the convenient appearance of handy gadgets that do whatever needs to be done (e.g. Hermione's handbag, deluminator) are things I find incredibly annoying. I know it's all just made up and it all just exists in the author's head, but I don't want to be reminded of that in the middle of the story when I'm trying to immerse myself in a different world. And the convenience of magic very often is like a slap in the face that wakes me up and brings me back to reality. I just had a few too many instances like this in DH, more than in the previous books. I don't know whether that is because there really were more convenient moments in DH or because my ability to suspend my disbelieve is not as good as it used to be. But I wasn't able to immerse myself as deeply in DH as in other books, and that made the read a lot less enjoyable.

As for closure, well, DH feels a bit hollow to me in that respect. I didn't expect Harry to gloriously win a great duel with LV because I never thought that Harry could stand a chance in a one-on-one fight. But I thought that at least Harry would find his own way to defeat LV. Instead he just did what DD told him to do. Even though DD was dead, Harry followed his every order, appearently incapable to come up with a solution himself. Wasn't the big shock about DD's death that Harry had lost his mentor? That he had to find his way himself? It turns out that no, actually, Harry and infact the whole trio remain puppets that do what DD expects them to do and he keeps pulling their strings from the grave. And then there is, of course, the whole wandlore/Elder Wand business. It would've helped a lot if Harry had figured it out earlier and disarmed Draco with the specific intent to become the true master of the Elder Wand. But he just got lucky and has the chance to kill an increasingly dull-minded LV with Expeliarmos. The end read like "your-wand-is-my-wand-because-it-was-Draco's-wand-but-you-use-the-AK-anyway although-it-has-already-failed-twice-on-me-and-now-you're-dead-and-we-take-our kids-to-the-Hogwarts-Express-and-all's-peachy". I had no theories about how the series would end, so I don't know what I expected, but I know this wasn't it.

Another point that comes up repeatedly in this thread concerns unanswered questions and also why people complain about certain things now when they didn't mind them in previous books. The reason is that the series is now over and we know for sure that there are no answers to our questions. One example: As I already said in v1 of this thread, I hoped that at some point we would get more information about the Veil. This is because I didn't like Sirius' death scene. I want to make clear again, though, that a) I understood perfectly well what happened and b) I never cared much about Sirius and was untouched by his death. So the reason why I didn't like his death scene is neither confusion, nor unwillingness to accept his death. I had no problem with the fact that he died, but with the way he died. He could've just been hit with a curse and dropped dead, like later Bellatrix. But in addition he also vanished and I never understood what the point of that was. However, in OotP I gave the situation the benifit of the doubt. I thought maybe there would be an explanation later about this strange death. Now that the series is over, there is no doubt left to benefit from and I have to accept that there's nothing more to it. At first I was disappointed about DH for not answering the question I had had for years, but I'm actually disappointed about OotP where the pointless scene happened. That's my main problem with unanswered questions. Knowing that there really is no answer to them kind of taints the books where the questions were raised in the first place.

Now to bring my rambly essay to an end, DH was decently entertaining and I will re-read the series and DH aswell. But I've also learned my lesson to stear clear of Fantasy novels in the future. It's a shame really, because I like stories about magic and fairies and demons, but I can't handle the deus-ex-machina-syndrome this genre suffers from. I mean, I know that this is a problem that can arise in any fiction, but at least in non-fantasy nobody tries to make you believe that you can actually use your lighter as a GPS-device if you really want to. And while I enjoyed reading DH, it didn't provide me with a feeling of closure but rather left a stale aftertaste.

Hi everyone, first post but I've been lurking for a while.

v1 was closed before I could post, and since I can't discuss post 1 of this thread here, I'll just share my opinion at the risk of receiving a life-long ban, since I don't see how one can point out faults with the book without implying that the author is responsible for them, which surely amounts to criticising the author's abilities.

Now, a disclaimer. I love the series, I admire JKR, I'm fascinated with the entire phenomenon, I'm not very active in the fandom but I'm up-to-date with its happenings.

And - I was really disappointed by the Deathly Hallows.

It didn't do what books 1-6 always do for me, and I'm sad about that, but not bitter and jaded, and not throwing tantrums, and not wishing a most gruesome death onto Jo. It may be ill-advised to say this, but no one, not even JKR herself could have written a perfect, absolutely faultless and satisfactory ending to this series. Epic endings are dodgy things to write for anyone, and JKR was under more pressure than ever with this one. I don't just mean all the media attention, speculation and expectations. In addition to all that, she personally set herself a colossal task: to start and finish a huge quest (who's done that in one book, ever?); to come up with an alternative carcass for the plot since she had abandoned the school year structure; to set up and develop the Hallows plotline; reveal R.A.B and explain Snape, oh and to wrap a few other things up nicely.

I think it's because of this that Book 7 is so staggeringly different from 1-6 in terms of quality. It's so precariously constructed it threatens to fall apart at times, it's clumsy, self-conscious, and the writing is surprisingly stiff.

To specify:

1. There are phrases and characters' lines in DH that are so meta they completely derail the momentum for me:

-"The truth at last." I half expected this to be followed by "Snape was actually good!"

-"Not my daughter, you *****." Sigh. This has to be the most self-consciously written line ever. It probably caused numerous debates, including Jo's internal one, and those between her and the editors. Clearly they decided to leave it, but it's so aware of itself it gives a loud metallic clang as Molly delivers it, and then it just sits there embarrassed, as if it's not entirely sure what it's doing there.

-"Really gives a feeling for the scope and the tragedy of the thing." Ron's just lost a brother. Why. Is. He. JOKING?!?!?

When you read a line like this, it's like JKR suddenly appears between the lines and waves at you.

2. Harry Potter and the Deus Ex Machina. Do I even need to explain? This I can (and have) tolerated to a certain extent, but Fiendfyre really did my nut in, as did Harry conveniently barging in on Voldie's thoughts.

3. Exposition I don't mind much, and those Dumbledore Explains Everything chapters always made a good read, because they were nicely written and completely justified. But King's Cross made me want to groan and bang my head against something. Why is dead Dumbledore so irrecognizable? Why does he speak so...plainly? Why is the dialogue reminiscent of a sit-com? I must admit, it was odd that dead people were able to communicate with Harry so freely; it's very anti-climax. One thing is his parents' ghosts suddenly emerging after Priori Incantatem, doing their best to help him, then disappearing, which was incredibly moving. Another thing is them casually accompanying him into the forest, with Lupin saying totally uncalled for things like "I'm sorry I died but it was for the greater good."

4. Deaths. This is a personal problem I guess, but none of the deaths moved me. And I tend to shed a tear or two when I read The Lost Prophecy, and I sobbed for Dumbledore (I think anyone who's lost an elderly loved one would). I guess it's normal when you're so unhappy with the book that you can't settle into it at all.

5. Epilogue. The first time I read it I burst out laughing and couldn't finish, mainly because I couldn't understand who was who in that onrush of incestuous names and sentimentality. It's grown on me since I read that "All Is Well" editorial, which actually touched me more than the book :/

6. Illustrations are unrecognizably dull and realistic. Even HBP's were more interesting.

To summarize - I was let down because I didn't feel a thing. I treasure Books 1-6 because they are alive with feeling, they really strike a chord. I've cried and laughed over them, I've had "aha!" moments as I read them, and they still haven't lost their charm, although each of them has suffered 4-6 rereads... and it's sad that this orange brick here which I lovingly anticipated will now gather dust on some remote shelf somewhere, because it doesn't do a thing for me. :/

I'm of two minds about DH. I like it well enough but then there are areas that I thought was really disappointing. The beginning chapters was good and the pace was quite brilliant, the last chapters was good too but then I thought it stalled in the middle and it became so tedious to read especially the camping part. I couldn't even re-read the middle chapters because it was that boring and as much as I like the trio, I would've like to read other characters as well.

5. Epilogue. The first time I read it I burst out laughing and couldn't finish, mainly because I couldn't understand who was who in that onrush of incestuous names and sentimentality. It's grown on me since I read that "All Is Well" editorial, which actually touched me more than the book :/

I suppose my name and the names of my siblings are incestous, too, then. I'm named after my grandfather; my brothers are named after my father and uncle; my sister, after my mother. On that same score, my mother's named after her mother. I can maybe understand any other problems one might have with the epilogue, but whenever one states that the naming of James and Lily after James and Lily was disturbing, or anything along those lines, it gets my blood boiling... :grumble:

As for your main complaint, well, I don't know. I had no trouble understanding who was who, sentimental onrush or no. I guess it's because my mind was in Nineteen-Years-Later mode from the moment I read the epilogue's title; seeing kids named after James, Lily, and even Albus came to me naturally--I suppose I'd probably do the same were I in Harry's shoes.

2. Harry Potter and the Deus Ex Machina. Do I even need to explain? This I can (and have) tolerated to a certain extent, but Fiendfyre really did my nut in, as did Harry conveniently barging in on Voldie's thoughts.

One more thing. Fiendfyre. Everyone goes on about what a bleeding cop-out it was. Everyone seems to have forgotten that it was entirely unnecessary to destroy the Horcrux--Ron and Hermione each had a batch of basilisk fangs, so the destruction of the diadem was a given. Fiendfyre was an out-of-nowhere thing, but not a deus; there was already a parachute under the seat, so the angel that open the plane door was more for flavor than salvation, ya dig? Basically, Fiendfyre was a coincidence that made things tougher than they had to be. And gave Crabbe an excuse to kill himself, but that could have been done with anything--we always knew he was an idiot, so a magical blunder's not a deus in that case.

And Harry barging on Voldie's thoughts is nothing new at all. We knew that Voldy's thoughts actually barged in on Harry when Voldy lost control--Occlumency lessened that connection, actually deafened the thing for a whole year, but did you honestly expect Voldemort to maintain such a precarious mental control as Occlumency even while he's breathing the flames of the underworld's fury from his stupid Michael Jackson nose? We got less emotionally charged scenes in the fifth year because Voldemort wasn't using Occlumency at all--so stuff like the snake in the Department of Mysteries and the constant dreams of the empty corridor were fair game. Now we get his high anticipation as he nears (or thinks he nears) the village where Gregorovitch lived, and his panicked fury upon learning of the danger to his Horcruxes.

What I'm trying to say is that labeling that last one a deus ex machina just doesn't fly with me. [staff edit]

I'm of two minds about DH. I like it well enough but then there are areas that I thought was really disappointing. The beginning chapters was good and the pace was quite brilliant, the last chapters was good too but then I thought it stalled in the middle and it became so tedious to read especially the camping part. I couldn't even re-read the middle chapters because it was that boring and as much as I like the trio, I would've like to read other characters as well.

I kind of agree, my mind it's dividen. I loved the first chapters, I think "The seven Potters" is one of my favourite chapters of the series. But I too felt dissapointed at times and bored in others. And the middle chapters (the camping) were kind of boreing but I really enjoyed it the first time I readed it. But i'm so confused, I really don't know what to think and that clearly didn't happend through books 1 to 6.

I suppose my name and the names of my siblings are incestous, too, then. I'm named after my grandfather; my brothers are named after my father and uncle; my sister, after my mother. On that same score, my mother's named after her mother. I can maybe understand any other problems one might have with the epilogue, but whenever one states that the naming of James and Lily after James and Lily was disturbing, or anything along those lines, it gets my blood boiling... :grumble:

Well in all honesty: Lily, James, Teddy and Albus Severus, were all named after people who had been murdered. At least Hermione (you know she named her kids, not Ron) left that out. It isn't the fact that they were named after a namesake, which bothers me, it's the fact that all of the people, they were named after, were murdered. Although I like the name Teddy, it is really the Potter kids names that bother me .

Well in all honesty: Lily, James, Teddy and Albus Severus, were all named after people who had been murdered. At least Hermione (you know she named her kids, not Ron) left that out. It isn't the fact that they were named after a namesake, which bothers me, it's the fact that all of the people, they were named after, were murdered. Although I like the name Teddy, it is really the Potter kids names that bother me .

That's a way of looking at it, I suppose, but I prefer to see it as an honoring of these people--all of whom died for the happier world in which the kids lived.

That's a way of looking at it, I suppose, but I prefer to see it as an honoring of these people--all of whom died for the happier world in which the kids lived.

I know, it still bothers me, and makes me feel a bit sick. It is really just the Potter kids names though, I just don't like them.

Well in all honesty: Lily, James, Teddy and Albus Severus, were all named after people who had been murdered. At least Hermione (you know she named her kids, not Ron) left that out. It isn't the fact that they were named after a namesake, which bothers me, it's the fact that all of the people, they were named after, were murdered. Although I like the name Teddy, it is really the Potter kids names that bother me .

What, are you afraid of ghosts? :lol: All of those murdered folks died honorable deaths and lived (mostly) honorable lives, did they not? Consider them honored for their courage. It's one of the highest honors I can think of. (That was most baldly pointed out in the case of the middle name "Severus," by the way.)

What, are you afraid of ghosts?

Course not! I don't even believe in an afterlife.

All of those murdered folks died honorable deaths and lived (mostly) honorable lives, did they not?

Yeah,but they didn't have to be namesakes.

Consider them honored for their courage. It's one of the highest honors I can think of. (That was most baldly pointed out in the case of the middle name "Severus," by the way.)

I would not name a child after someone who had been murdered. Particularly in the way that James, Lily, Albus and Snape had been murdered. Call it superstition or whatever; I just thought it was wrong, and a little tacky.

-"Really gives a feeling for the scope and the tragedy of the thing." Ron's just lost a brother. Why. Is. He. JOKING?!?!?

When you read a line like this, it's like JKR suddenly appears between the lines and waves at you.



:tu::lol:
I had to read that line over cuz it didn't sink in the first time.

Course not! I don't even believe in an afterlife.

I was kidding with ya, sai. :whistle:

Yeah,but they didn't have to be namesakes.

They didn't have to not be namesakes, either. Harry feels very warmly toward at least three of these people, and the fourth he came to greatly respect, if not exactly like. It makes sense that he'd want to honor them in the best way he can, and naming a child after someone is a rather basic way to do that.

I would not name a child after someone who had been murdered. Particularly in the way that James, Lily, Albus and Snape had been murdered. Call it superstition or whatever; I just thought it was wrong, and a little tacky.

That's your opinion, and you're entitled to it, but I can't agree or even sympathize with it. Personally, I think that if we resisted naming kids after people that've been murdered, I'd say names would be in pretty short supply by now. Do you know how many people who have your name must have died some manner of unpleasant death at some point in the past, or maybe are dying one now? Perhaps there's a safe somewhere, perhaps buried in a random ditch, containing the diced-up pieces of one such sorry soul... (Mwahahahahaha!!! :evil: )

I can see somewhat why you might not name a person after a murdered loved one, because it'd likely bring back painful memories, but that's an individual thing. Some people are more resilient than others and don't start feeling miserable again whenever a particularly painful part of their lives is recalled to them--and if Harry had that particular weakness, the boy would have been scarred for life, and not just on his forehead!

And as for tacky, tacky is in the eye of the beholder. It's only really tacky when there's consent among a large number of beholders. Then you know you have problems.

That's your opinion, and you're entitled to it, but I can't agree or even sympathize with it. Personally, I think that if we resisted naming kids after people that've been murdered, I'd say names would be in pretty short supply by now. Do you know how many people who have your name must have died some manner of unpleasant death at some point in the past, or maybe are dying one now? Perhaps there's a safe somewhere, perhaps buried in a random ditch, containing the diced-up pieces of one such sorry soul... (Mwahahahahaha!!! :evil: )

A name is just a name. Thousands of people have my name. It isn't the name that bothers me, it is the intention and the specific person one is named after. It just bothers me, and I rolled my eyes a bit. However, a large part of the epilogue just seemed silly to me; I didn't really care for it.

"Really gives a feeling for the scope and the tragedy of the thing." Ron's just lost a brother. Why. Is. He. JOKING?!?!?

Was that line really in it, I don't remember it. Yes, rather silly, the editors should have taken that out.

A name is just a name.

That was my point.

Thousands of people have my name. It isn't the name that bothers me, it is the intention and the specific person one is named after. It just bothers me, and I rolled my eyes a bit.

Well, I doubt Harry was thinking "Oh, I think I'll name all of my children after murdered people," so there's really nothing there to be bothered by. What about it bothers you, anyway? Specifically, I mean?

Was that line really in it, I don't remember it. Yes, rather silly, the editors should have taken that out.

The guy's capable of a little humor even in light of tragedy. That's why he's joking. It's what we call "comic relief." Ron found something funny in what was going on around him. I see no problem with that. (What he's joking about is rather ironic considering the complaint: Peeves's flippant attitude in the face of all that bloodshed. "Really captures the scope and tragedy of the thing, doesn't it?" Just a little dry wit. But a good sign: at least we know Ron is capable of moving on, because if you can still laugh at the world, you're not completely lost.)

EDIT: Another point worth mentioning. Ron was among the crowd who saw Harry's apparently lifeless body in Hagrid's arms. He just lost a brother, true, but he just found out he didn't lose his best friend. Relief, I find, is an excellent tonic for one's mood.

Well, I doubt Harry was thinking "Oh, I think I'll name all of my children after murdered people," so there's really nothing there to be bothered by. What about it bothers you, anyway? Specifically, I mean?

Of course Harry didn’t, I just didn’t like what JKR did. If you mean the epilogue, I thought it was a wee bit silly: the snogging talk, Ron (in general), Harry's talk to Albus, Ginny commenting on how she hoped Teddy would marry Victorie. It seemed rather unsophisticated. She could have written the same scene, in a much better way, but that's just my opinion. I really don't care though, whatever.

The guy's capable of a little humor even in light of tragedy. That's why he's joking. It's what we call "comic relief." Ron found something funny in what was going on around him. I see no problem with that. (What he's joking about is rather ironic considering the complaint: Peeves's flippant attitude in the face of all that bloodshed. "Really captures the scope and tragedy of the thing, doesn't it?" Just a little dry wit. But a good sign: at least we know Ron is capable of moving on, because if you can still laugh at the world, you're not completely lost.)

I don't really remember the line, and I really don't feel like looking it up. It seemed like a silly line, and clumsy wit. People do not seriously make comments like that in those situations. She could have had Ron say something else, but does it really matter? I don't like everything about the books, not many people would I wager.

Of course Harry didn’t, I just didn’t like what JKR did. If you mean the epilogue, I thought it was a wee bit silly: the snogging talk, Ron (in general), Harry's talk to Albus, Ginny commenting on how she hoped Teddy would marry Victorie. It seemed rather unsophisticated. She could have written the same scene, in a much better way, but that's just my opinion. I really don't care though, whatever.

It didn't strike me as any less sophisticated than any other light-hearted scene in the books, but I guess that's just my view on't. Considering that they were nineteen years in the future and Voldemort was ancient history (Binns material, my friends, sheer Binns material), I don't see why they shouldn't have been talking about what they did.

I don't really remember the line, and I really don't feel like looking it up. It seemed like a silly line, and clumsy wit. People do not seriously make comments like that in those situations.

People don't usually have immature poltergeists swooping around singing victory songs in those kinds of situations, either. Ron's comment about Peeves's little verse of poetry there was spot-on, I think, but that's my opinion.

She could have had Ron say something else, but does it really matter? I don't like everything about the books, not many people would I wager.

Indeed. Personally, my own gripes are with the early-series writing style; in my mind everything just gets better as it goes along. And when it comes to continuity flubs, just call me Merciless Editor. Thankfully the series holds together rather well considering its sheer size and ambition. But there are flubs here and there, yes there are.

I don't see why they shouldn't have been talking about what they did.

It wasn't that, I just thought it was silly. If my family were talking like that, I'd dismiss them as being ridiculous. They could have talked about the exact same things without the silliness.

Thankfully the series holds together rather well considering its sheer size and ambition. But there are flubs here and there, yes there are.

There are inconsistency problems everywhere: it either annoys you to high heaven or you just let it go. JKR desperately needed a lot more editing from 4 onwards, she didn’t get it and such is life. I thought 7 was a good book, but it had problems like many of the others.

I really liked DH. I loved the way the Trio worked together, etc. My biggest gripe though is the way Dumbledore turned out. He ordered Snape to do what I consider to be morally questionable things all for the greater good. He came out to be slightly immoral, in my opinion.

I also thought that Snape turned out to be a little one dimensional. He was more interesting in HBP, especially in the Spinners End chapter, than he was in DH. It turned out that Snape did it all for Lily and was Dumbledore's loyal servant. Doing it all for Lily, a person who died years ago, seemed a little sad. I would have preferred that he did it for the greater good. I would have liked to see him stand up to Voldemort, stand up to the Death Eaters, engage in battle. But he never did. Snape's character just felt flat to me after DH.

I suppose my name and the names of my siblings are incestous, too, then. I'm named after my grandfather; my brothers are named after my father and uncle; my sister, after my mother. On that same score, my mother's named after her mother. I can maybe understand any other problems one might have with the epilogue, but whenever one states that the naming of James and Lily after James and Lily was disturbing, or anything along those lines, it gets my blood boiling... :grumble:


It's a matter of tradition I guess, and personal preference. I personally wouldn't name my child after anyone, but that's just me. And "incestuous" doesn't necessarily mean disturbing, just gratuitous and confusing.

And yes, it boils down to what comes naturally to you and what doesn't.

One more thing. Fiendfyre. Everyone goes on about what a bleeding cop-out it was. Everyone seems to have forgotten that it was entirely unnecessary to destroy the Horcrux--Ron and Hermione each had a batch of basilisk fangs, so the destruction of the diadem was a given. Fiendfyre was an out-of-nowhere thing, but not a deus; there was already a parachute under the seat, so the angel that open the plane door was more for flavor than salvation, ya dig? Basically, Fiendfyre was a coincidence that made things tougher than they had to be. And gave Crabbe an excuse to kill himself, but that could have been done with anything--we always knew he was an idiot, so a magical blunder's not a deus in that case.


It was a cop-out though, and doubly so because what the scene revolved around wasn't pivotal in the destruction of the diadem.

And Harry barging on Voldie's thoughts is nothing new at all.


Agreed, and I've never been happy with the way this connection is used as a plot device in OOTP. "HAH, I've just been feeding you a fake vision!" It's like Tyler Durden's "what if I knew it'd come to this and spent the whole day thinking about the wrong wire?"

It's used similarly in DH, only on a bigger scale. It understandably becomes a major driving force towards the end, because the Trio simply has no other way of finding out what they should do next and where. Again, I don't know what alternative there could have been, but it doesn't make me any less dissatisfied with what we do have - and that's Harry conveniently seeing what will allow him to proceed with the quest.

She could have written the same scene, in a much better way, but that's just my opinion.


That actually pretty much sums up my overall impression, and not just of the epilogue. The writing seems like a hindrance rather than a window to the world she was usually so good at describing.

I had quite a few beefs with DH, starting with how Harry didn't die. I really think that his death would've enhanced the story, and actually brought meaning to it. If Harry would've died to save the wizarding world, then he would've defeated Voldemort with the "power that the dark lord knows not", I thought that was the entire purpose of the story, correct?

The book was half-way decent at the begining, but dulled out to a horribly typical, "happily-ever-after" end. For gods sake! There was surprisingly little rejoice and rebuilding shown after Voldemort's defeat. Well, if I came out of 50 years of being terrorized by an infamous dark lord, I sure would've wanted to have a rehabilitation shown. Hardly a way to end a series; Jo was just so ancy to shove in that cheesy ending that she didn't take time to step back and look at the series as a whole, not only about a single person.

I was also kinda mad at the fact that all of Harry and Ginny's kids were names that obviously only he chose; and not names that were chosen by both him and Ginny.

Snape's lack of appearence was disappointing as well, considering how important he became as the series continued.

Our view on Dumbledore changing completely (or my view at least). I don't like Dumbledore as much as I used to prior to 7. After reading 7, you realize that Dumbledore was reckless in his quest to defeat Voldemort, and was willing to go to any length to get it done. I also saw the flaw in him using anyone that could be used in order to get it done. He used both Harry and Snape, especially Snape.

If Harry would've died to save the wizarding world, then he would've defeated Voldemort with the "power that the dark lord knows not", I thought that was the entire purpose of the story, correct?

He did, he just didn't die. He was willing to sacrifice himself, and put love for others ahead of his 'individual' good.

He did, he just didn't die. He was willing to sacrifice himself, and put love for others ahead of his 'individual' good.

Which is very dissappointing since Harry gets another chance at life where others don't. Many other characters are not lacking in the virtues Harry possesses. Infact, there is evidence supporting that they are more courageous, loving, selfless...intelligent than our dear 'chosen one'.

Harry chose death, he didnt even draw his wand, the others died fighting, theres a difference.

Which is very dissappointing since Harry gets another chance at life where others don't. Many other characters are not lacking in the virtues Harry possesses. Infact, there is evidence supporting that they are more courageous, loving, selfless...intelligent than our dear 'chosen one'.

What made Harry's sacrifice different from Remus's, Sirius's, etc., was that Harry was in essence also given a choice by Voldemort: "You can come to me and die at this hour or you can stay where you are and watch while I enter the battle and kill your friends." And he made the choice to die, without defending himself.

And what tethered Harry to life was simply Voldemort's own arrogance and mistake--something that was foreshadowed from GoF onward. Voldemort used Harry's blood in his resurrection, and therefore by his own action gave Harry another shot at life. It wasn't that Harry was better than anyone else--but that Voldemort's choices continually brought himself closer to his own destruction.

Which is very dissappointing since Harry gets another chance at life where others don't. Many other characters are not lacking in the virtues Harry possesses. Infact, there is evidence supporting that they are more courageous, loving, selfless...intelligent than our dear 'chosen one'.

Oy, Harry didn't die. The reason he got his second chance--or rather, his extension on his first--wasn't because he was particularly courageous or self-sacrificing, it was because of that blood-link thingy... as Dumbledore explains. Or partly explains. He never bothered with the mechanics of it. Which is fine by me: if I want a magic textbook, I'll either pick up Fantastic Beasts, or, if I'm feeling particularly pagan, go buy some books on the occult.

Nevertheless, the intension and the act of sacrifice were there. That he was saved by a fluke (he really is The Boy Who Lucked Out at least half of the time) doesn't negate that much.

As for your assertion that "many other characters" are more courageous, loving, selfless, etc. than Harry, I don't think so. At best they're just as. But I'm interested--what is this "evidence" you speak of?

I had quite a few beefs with DH, starting with how Harry didn't die. I really think that his death would've enhanced the story, and actually brought meaning to it. If Harry would've died to save the wizarding world, then he would've defeated Voldemort with the "power that the dark lord knows not", I thought that was the entire purpose of the story, correct?

Yeah, and he did. Your assertion that his death would have added meaning to it, however, is purely subjective. Me, I think it would have been a really crappy way to end a story. (Not that many a real-life story hasn't ended in the same crappy fashion, but still...)

[Staff edit]

Here's the rub:

"All was well" = present tense. In this case, nineteen years later. It doesn't negate the "scope and tragedy of the thing" (as Ron would say, and did say in a slightly different but ironically similar context). It also says nothing, nothing, about anything that happened prior to the final scene on Platform Nine and Three Quarters. And most importantly, it says nothing about what happens after that final scene. Its chief point was connected to the statement that shares half of its paragraph: the scar had not hurt for nineteen years. Basically, it's saying No More Moldyshorts. Of course, it undoubtedly also refers to the happy scene it's included in, that of the two families sending their kids off to magic-school in a scene of almost hilarious cheesiness (there's often quite a lot of almost hilarious cheesiness in scenes like that in real life, it's just the contrast to the rest of the story that makes it stick out), and it might even be construed to refer to the ever-loving wizarding government, if the reader wants it to. But the key difference here is semantic:

"Happily" is not "Happily ever after." [...]

For gods sake! There was surprisingly little rejoice and rebuilding shown after Voldemort's defeat.

I'd say we got a fair bit of rejoicing, but that it was summed up quickly. (Really, it's not worth having a close-up of the general clammor. An overhead glance was good enough, and easier to write well, by all the gods...)

Well, if I came out of 50 years of being terrorized by an infamous dark lord, I sure would've wanted to have a rehabilitation shown. Hardly a way to end a series; Jo was just so ancy to shove in that cheesy ending

"That cheesy ending" refers to the epilogue? But that was nineteen years later. She could have tacked that on no matter how much of all that stuff was shown at the end. As a matter of fact, it was such a tack-on that she wrote the first draft years before she wrote the book. If this is a fault, it has nothing to do with her being "ancy" to "shove in" anything.

that she didn't take time to step back and look at the series as a whole, not only about a single person.

Well, the series was "Harry Potter," not "The Wizarding World," so I think we all really should have expected something like this. Even so, I can see why people would be upset by it. (On a similar note, I'm absolutely in love with the final Dark Tower book, but I can also see why people would be absurdly PO'd by it, and I never miss a chance to make fun of the Danville Deus. Having both books on my bookshelf, I can easily tell you which series ended with more grace.) On the other hand, you just pointed that out without thinking, yes? There are times when you really shouldn't have to read a scene to know it happened. Jo doesn't have to do your thinking for you; you did it yourself. We can imagine well enough what happened after the story ended (as it did in fact end; once the struggle between Harry and Voldemort had been concluded and its loose ends cleared up, the story was over), so in quite a lot of cases (George's reaction to Fred's death, for instance; we know he's going to be almost mad with grief, why do we need Jo to tell us?) it's probably best to just leave well enough alone. I suppose some of us just have different opinions on what "well enough" is.

[...]

Snape's lack of appearence was disappointing as well, considering how important he became as the series continued.

Yeah, but it worked well for what it was supposed to accomplish. After Snape "revealed his true colors" at the end of book six, he would have had to work from the background if he was going to do any good. (This is what I think we should have expected if we expected him to still be a good guy.) If he was working in the background, the only way we'd have seen a lot of the guy is if Jo completely changed her narrative style, or else contrived a storyline in which Harry had a dramatic encounter with Snape every couple of chapters. All in all, I'm fine with it as is.

Our view on Dumbledore changing completely (or my view at least). I don't like Dumbledore as much as I used to prior to 7. After reading 7, you realize that Dumbledore was reckless in his quest to defeat Voldemort, and was willing to go to any length to get it done. I also saw the flaw in him using anyone that could be used in order to get it done. He used both Harry and Snape, especially Snape.

I don't think he was reckless. He was too brilliant to be reckless. I think the word you're looking for is "ruthless."

As for discussion of Dumbledore's character, I'll not go there; that's for the Dumbles threads.

As far as your view of Dumbledore changing completely, is that really something that should be counted toward your disappointment with this book as a piece of literature?

Oy, Harry didn't die. The reason he got his second chance--or rather, his extension on his first--wasn't because he was particularly courageous or self-sacrificing, it was because of that blood-link thingy... as Dumbledore explains. Or partly explains. He never bothered with the mechanics of it. Which is fine by me: if I want a magic textbook, I'll either pick up Fantastic Beasts, or, if I'm feeling particularly pagan, go buy some books on the occult.

Nevertheless, the intension and the act of sacrifice were there. That he was saved by a fluke (he really is The Boy Who Lucked Out at least half of the time) doesn't negate that much.

As for your assertion that "many other characters" are more courageous, loving, selfless, etc. than Harry, I don't think so. At best they're just as. But I'm interested--what is this "evidence" you speak of?



Sirius Black : couragous, loving and selfless when it came to protecting Harry and James in the past.
Regulus : Brave and selfless when it came to defying Voldemort and destroying his Horcrux. Shold love towards his parets and Kreacher.
Lily : Had a choice not to die but instead chose to protect Harry
Mrs. Weasley : Love for her children and Harry ( look at her Boggart and fight with Belatrix)
Narcissa : Showed deep love for her son. Courage when facing Voldemort and lying to him.
Albus : Selfless, Brave - sacrificed himself for the greater good. Loving towards his long gone sister ( wanted to bring her back through the resurrection stone)
Snape : Courage, selflessness - worked as a double agent for 17 years of his miserable life. Protecting Harry and those dunderheads at Hogwarts
Love - Lily...However ridikkulus is may seem.
Cedric : Courage when facing Voldemort. Love (look at Cho relationship)
Dobby : Loves Harry, and is brave and selfless when it came to protecting him. Look at CoS and DH where his life ends when trying to save Harry and co.
Kreacher : Bravery in battling at Hogwarts.
Augusta: Courage when battling at Hogwarts. Loving towards her son, his wife ( hospital visits) and grandson.
Sir cadogen : Courage, selflessness - was willing to protect the Gryffindors in PoA after the Fat Lady was attacked.

And finally, we have Barty Crouch Junior's mother who I consider to have shown the greatest courage and love, badly judged it may have been, but she was willing to go and die in Azkaban in exchange for the freedom of her son.

Sirius Black : couragous, loving and selfless when it came to protecting Harry and James in the past.
Regulus : Brave and selfless when it came to defying Voldemort and destroying his Horcrux. Shold love towards his parets and Kreacher.
Lily : Had a choice not to die but instead chose to protect Harry
Mrs. Weasley : Love for her children and Harry ( look at her Boggart and fight with Belatrix)
Narcissa : Showed deep love for her son. Courage when facing Voldemort and lying to him.
Albus : Selfless, Brave - sacrificed himself for the greater good. Loving towards his long gone sister ( wanted to bring her back through the resurrection stone)
Snape : Courage, selflessness - worked as a double agent for 17 years of his miserable life. Protecting Harry and those dunderheads at Hogwarts
Love - Lily...However ridikkulus is may seem.
Cedric : Courage when facing Voldemort. Love (look at Cho relationship)
Dobby : Loves Harry, and is brave and selfless when it came to protecting him. Look at CoS and DH where his life ends when trying to save Harry and co.
Kreacher : Bravery in battling at Hogwarts.
Augusta: Courage when battling at Hogwarts. Loving towards her son, his wife ( hospital visits) and grandson.
Sir cadogen : Courage, selflessness - was willing to protect the Gryffindors in PoA after the Fat Lady was attacked.

And finally, we have Barty Crouch Junior's mother who I consider to have shown the greatest courage and love, badly judged it may have been, but she was willing to go and die in Azkaban in exchange for the freedom of her son.

Well, including Cadogen's a bit of a stretch--it's impossible to tell how much of his "courage" was merely more of his madness--but the others are fair points.

Another minor correction: Cedric was facing someone who, to him, was quite faceless. He did not know Wormtail and had no way of knowing Voldemort was present, and he died before learning of either. He was courageous, but it would be unfair to say he was courageous when facing Voldemort (who was, as a matter of fact, not even the one who killed him--just the one who said, "Kill the spare!"). We have no way of knowing how Cedric would have acted if he'd been faced with Voldemort. He probably wouldn't have been weak in the knees, but there is a massive difference between facing an unknown wizard and facing the dreaded He Who Must Not Be Named.

It should be pointed out that at no point in the series is Harry ever made out to be more brave than every single person in the universe. He's made out to be particularly selfless (how few, says Dumbledore, could have seen what he saw in the mirror--and he's right: no matter how brave or selfless one is in other aspects, an object such as the Philosopher's Stone would be a massive temptation), but he's not made out to be the only selfless guy out there. He's made out to be capable of a high quantity of love, but that is merely his crucial foil to Voldemort.

That others displayed the same massive courage as Harry is arguably true. That some others displayed the same selflessness, is arguably true as well, though this is shakier as not many of them have been faced with the same temptations (leastwise not while we were there to see it). That others displayed the same strong ability to love is probably true, as well. I would not say that anyone has displayed any of these qualities, let alone all of them, his higher quantities than Harry has. I would, however, be perfectly comfortable admitting that others have possibly shown one or more of the three in similar or the same quantities as Harry has. (Not that we can hold any of them in measuring cups, of course...)

One could argue, however, that Harry's rocky past (orphaned at the age of one and then stuck with the Dursleys for a decade, and not so much as a single friend at Muggle school) makes his courage, selflessness, and ability to love, all of which are very strong, that much more extraordinary, and this, I believe, is true.

I don't think the topic here was to compare the courage of different characters.

I don't think the topic here was to compare the courage of different characters.

True that, sorry.

I really liked DH. I loved the way the Trio worked together, etc. My biggest gripe though is the way Dumbledore turned out. He ordered Snape to do what I consider to be morally questionable things all for the greater good. He came out to be slightly immoral, in my opinion.

I also thought that Snape turned out to be a little one dimensional. He was more interesting in HBP, especially in the Spinners End chapter, than he was in DH. It turned out that Snape did it all for Lily and was Dumbledore's loyal servant. Doing it all for Lily, a person who died years ago, seemed a little sad. I would have preferred that he did it for the greater good. I would have liked to see him stand up to Voldemort, stand up to the Death Eaters, engage in battle. But he never did. Snape's character just felt flat to me after DH.

But that's often what happens in real life, decisions have to be made sometimes for the greater good. If Dumbledore had not taken the chance that he did, Voldemort would likely have taken over the wizarding world, and decimated the muggle world, and that would have been a wretched existence for any who survived. Dumbledore did everything he could to prepare Harry and keep Snape's loyalty, because he saw what could happen. He had to stay with the larger view in the end, as did Harry.

I agree, Snape's motivation was sad, no two ways about it. But it was also Snape's choice to take on that role, and his choice to stay in it, and do as Dumbledore wished. As Snape stood on the Tower assessing his choices, Dumbledore pleaded with Snape -- he knew that in the end it would have to be Snape's choice to act or not as Dumbledore wished. Although Snape's initial (and final) motivation was his love for Lily, he was smart enough to also see the bigger picture as Dumbledore did. Acting to bring about Voldemort's defeat would serve to fulfill both.

He did, he just didn't die. He was willing to sacrifice himself, and put love for others ahead of his 'individual' good.
Not entirely true. True he did attempt to sacrifice himself, but there is one thing that I had a problem with.

The action of his sacrifice didn't have any effect on the outcome of the battle. If he would've died, he would've defeated Voldemort with the power that "the dark lord knows not", however, this is not the case. He defeated Voldemort from a freak accident of him unintentionally being the master of the Elder wand. That has nothing to do with love, that's merely coincidence, and this contradicts the entire moral of the story. The moral of the story was that love triumphed over evil, and this never happened in 7.

Not entirely true. True he did attempt to sacrifice himself, but there is one thing that I had a problem with.

The action of his sacrifice didn't have any effect on the outcome of the battle. If he would've died, he would've defeated Voldemort with the power that "the dark lord knows not", however, this is not the case. He defeated Voldemort from a freak accident of him unintentionally being the master of the Elder wand. That has nothing to do with love, that's merely coincidence, and this contradicts the entire moral of the story. The moral of the story was that love triumphed over evil, and this never happened in 7.

The prophecy never said that he would defeat the dark lord 'with the power he knows not'. Just that Harry would have such a power, which he did, and it contributed to Harry's defeat of Voldemort. In fact it was Harry's ultimate triumph against Voldemort. Anyone could have sent that AK back at him.

Leaving aside the fiasco of the epilogue the book was technically superior to the three preceding it. But the introduction of a major whack of new mythology (the hallows) most of which was irrelevant to the final battle was a big boo-boo.

It's a big stretch that the delightful Miss Granger would not have come across the fable in her indefatiguable quest to find out all she could about the world in which she found herself and less likely that she wouldn't have connected the cloaks.

Well the only thing I wanted after all the years of waiting around and reading the books was for Remus, my fav. character to finally be happy. I begged for it for years in various fourms - let him die and join James and Lily - then James and Sirius - so he could finally flee his condition and exhausted, lined, greying features. I didn't even care if we didn't know for sure if he would be that way in the after-world, I could imagine that...just let him die I cried! So when she did, I of course felt the whole series was absolutley worth the read. Then she threw in the reunion scene just so I'd be sure my whole wish was granted and see him young, dark haired and unlined. Plus she allowed him to be the only other Marauder with a child legacy, plus she allowed him to marry and know love on earth first w/ Tonks and allowed him to grow close with Harry and find another who loved him as his old buddies had. Well she more than gratified my personal wish so in that respect, DH, in which my dream came true and more besides, was awesome.

As for my disappointment with DH in relation to the rest of the storyline (which was all a big subplot for me, lol) I have expressed before that some of the parts seemed contrived and miraculous; some of the adverbs and analogies were flawed, misused and/or poorly done - and Harry seemed to grow a bit one-dimensional.

However, upon re-reading it, knowing those things in advance, I was able to overlook them more. On the second read I wasn't near as disappointed with the book (apart from Lupin which I was always happy about) as I had been the first time. It still had its flaws, but I read it slower and it read a bit better.

As for the overall most disappointing part - I suppose that would still be the camping scenes. They were a little too long and drawn out. Also I didn't like the way time passed by so rapidly without knowing what was going on with the other main characters, well main to me.

I know, it still bothers me, and makes me feel a bit sick. It is really just the Potter kids names though, I just don't like them.
I thought it would have been interesting if Jo had named Lily, after some other flower (possible even some type of Lillie). James could have been Jacob. James is a form of Jacobus, Jacob is a variation of Jacobus. So thus kids still named after their grandparents but also get their own names too.

Wow! Some really well thought out comments. I can't top them so let me just say I think that DH exceeded my expectations. It tied up most loose ends; it was a challenge to figure out a lot of it on the first read through; my 2nd favorite character in the book (Hermoine) survived! My favorite character - Dumbledore - was there for Harry (beyond my wildest expectations). Valdemort was killed! It is the first book that I read thru all night (I haven't pulled an all nighter in 15+ years) from start to finish - I couldn't put it down and leave Harry, Hermoine and Ron out there somewhere. It was in fact emotionally overwhelming and I had to reread it starting the 2nd day to recuperate. Sure, there were lots of little things I could pick at - but the book as a whole far outweighed that.

Personally I thought the ending was absolutely flawless.

This thread wasn't really intended to be a debate thread. Just a place where everyone could tell what made them disappointed.

I'm not going to waste time on deleting one impolite sentence here and another there. Anyone who can't behave as asked to will see their posts vanish. And if repeated also find themselves excluded from this particular forum for a few days.

Well the only thing I wanted after all the years of waiting around and reading the books was for Remus, my fav. character to finally be happy. I begged for it for years in various fourms - let him die ...just let him die I cried! So when she did, I of course felt the whole series was absolutley worth the read.
:lol: wick, you're possibly the first poster I come across begging for his favourite's character's death :tu:

I was very disappointed in this book. It was entertaining while I was reading it, but it left a very bitter aftertaste to me. Too many things didn't make sense.

1. What the heck was DD's plan? He wanted Snape to be master of the elder wand - why? DD never told this, and he also didn't tell Snape about the horcruxes - so he basically wasted the valuable double agent by not letting him know enough to help Harry in his mission. Why didn't DD just GIVE Harry the Sword & the Horcrux book? Why did they have to get in on their own? DD's gifts in his will also didn't make sense - why not just tell Hermione about the Tale? Why did he make things so difficult?

2. The whole elder wand allegiance thing was incredibly confusing. I guess DD planned for Harry to get Draco's wand by accident? Harry won out of sheer dumb luck, in the end.

3. Snape's death - he could put up a shield charm in an instant, but he couldn't stop a snake? Arthur Weasely survived numerous snake bites, while Snape died in an instant. Very inconsistent. Also, I was disappointed about the lack of any Snape/Harry confrontation. What was all the fuss about? Harry goes from rage & revenge in HBP to basically forgetting about Snape in DH. I would've liked to have seen some resolution to that relationship.

4. Demonizing the Slytherins. - Oh, this bothered me on so many levels. Basically, it seems to be saying that we CAN stereotype & hate people based on a label. That's not a message about tolerance. Where was the House Unity the Sorting Hat kept talking about?

5. Unbelieveable coincidences - in all of England, the goblins just happened to camp right next to Harry? Ron remembers how to speak Parseltongue?

5. Calvinism & predestination - After all the talk about choices, it really came down to destiny in the end. Harry has a Horcrux, and must die. Voldemort is a psychopath, and must end unredeemed. The Slytherins are bad, and must remain so. There is a real sense of predestination in Harry Potter that I personally do not agree with.

So, there's my rant. There were many things I liked about the book, but the flaws prevented me from truly enjoying it as an end to the series.

quoteing MarieNC

1. What the heck was DD's plan? He wanted Snape to be master of the elder wand - why? DD never told this, and he also didn't tell Snape about the horcruxes - so he basically wasted the valuable double agent by not letting him know enough to help Harry in his mission. Why didn't DD just GIVE Harry the Sword & the Horcrux book? Why did they have to get in on their own? DD's gifts in his will also didn't make sense - why not just tell Hermione about the Tale? Why did he make things so difficult?

I don't think DD's plan was to give Snape the wand, becuase (if he knew, and I guess he did, something of wandlore) told him to kill him, so the wand isn't defeat it. Dumbledore, maybe, knew that Voldemort eventaully would go and find the Elder Wand and realise it was DD's and Snape had defeated him, so it all came to killing Snape.
I guess Dumbledore didn't gave Harry the sword at that point because he did't knew he was going to die, he would came back and destroyed the locket with it.

2. The whole elder wand allegiance thing was incredibly confusing. I guess DD planned for Harry to get Draco's wand by accident? Harry won out of sheer dumb luck, in the end.

I don't think he wanted Harry to be the master of the Elder Wand, he only wanted Voldemort not to have it. I don't think Dumbledore would assume that Harry would break into his tomb and take it.

3. Snape's death - he could put up a shield charm in an instant, but he couldn't stop a snake? Arthur Weasely survived numerous snake bites, while Snape died in an instant. Very inconsistent. Also, I was disappointed about the lack of any Snape/Harry confrontation. What was all the fuss about? Harry goes from rage & revenge in HBP to basically forgetting about Snape in DH. I would've liked to have seen some resolution to that relationship.

Snape was in shock, and if he had defended himself by dueling Voldemort, Voldemort would have killed him as well. Also I think Snape died instantly by the bites (not like Mr.Weasley) because he actually wanted to die, Arthur didn't.
Harry didn't have time to think about Snape, he was hunting down Horcruxes! Why would he bother himself with that, he had better things to do. And when he decided to go hide in Grimmauld Place he said he wished Snape was there so he could duel him.

4. Demonizing the Slytherins. - Oh, this bothered me on so many levels. Basically, it seems to be saying that we CAN stereotype & hate people based on a label. That's not a message about tolerance. Where was the House Unity the Sorting Hat kept talking about?

I agree on that. Didn't like that the only Slytherin left at Hogwarts was Slughorn.

5. Unbelieveable coincidences - in all of England, the goblins just happened to camp right next to Harry? Ron remembers how to speak Parseltongue?

Yes the Goblings being there was convient but c'mon they where on the run, they went hideing in the woods, it isn't that impossible.
I agree, I didn't liked Ron opening the chamber, too far fetched

5. Calvinism & predestination - After all the talk about choices, it really came down to destiny in the end. Harry has a Horcrux, and must die. Voldemort is a psychopath, and must end unredeemed. The Slytherins are bad, and must remain so. There is a real sense of predestination in Harry Potter that I personally do not agree with.

When did become destiny Harry being a Horcrux? it was just fandom talking. Voldemort was a psychopath and beyond forgiveness. Harry did gave him a chance to feel remorse and Voldemort didn't wanted to.

When I read DH, it had been a while since I had read any of the previous books. So, I felt a little let down and somewhat confused. Then, I decided to go back a reread books 1-6 and then I appreciated the 7th book so much more! There were a bunch of little things I had forgotten about that were needed to fully understand DH. If I could do it over again, I would have redead the whole series before even starting DH.

It was a bit long and drawn out, but I didn't mind because I really didn't want the book to end.

Overall, after rereading the series, I was not at all disappointed.

The last book somewhat disappointed me. i could not fully appreciate the legend of Harry Potter. he lived to tell the tale, thereby cheapening the entire series. i realize that the character "Harry Potter" was saved, but what about the legend. this could have been an epic series but instead was reduced to a happily ever after fairy tale.

I have a question. I heard a few critics - on tv, unfortunately - mention the book, and I wondered if we have a kind of archive somewhere, or a collection of links, with the book's reception?

I have a question. I heard a few critics - on tv, unfortunately - mention the book, and I wondered if we have a kind of archive somewhere, or a collection of links, with the book's reception?

I think the only way to get that stuff right now would be via websearch. The only reviews I think this site has called attention to are New York Times (the infamous spoiler review) and Stephen King (which is definitely worth a read, by the way--it should still be on the MuggleNet front page, I think, and if not it's not far back in the archives).

It would be interesting to bring all of that to the table, but understand this: if a critic were to go so far as to verbally tear apart a Potter book, it would spark an uproar. I remember one authoress who brutally (to the point of rudeness at times) criticized Order of the Phoenix, and essentially set a raging bonfire among the fan community. For fear of similar reactions, some critics might not go as far against the book as they otherwise would. (In some cases this is a good thing: I don't need some snooty authoress telling me these books appeal to my "childish psychology," thanks.) You might have to dig a little deeper to find those reviews which do not favor the book.

1. What the heck was DD's plan? He wanted Snape to be master of the elder wand - why? DD never told this, and he also didn't tell Snape about the horcruxes - so he basically wasted the valuable double agent by not letting him know enough to help Harry in his mission. Why didn't DD just GIVE Harry the Sword & the Horcrux book? Why did they have to get in on their own? DD's gifts in his will also didn't make sense - why not just tell Hermione about the Tale? Why did he make things so difficult?

The only thing I'm going to say here (in the interest of not starting another overblown debate--the local auror deleted the last one, you see) is that Dumbledore was only said to have wanted Snape to "end up with" the Elder Wand, not that he wanted Snape to be its master. Harry says that Dumbledore intended to die undefeated, the wand's last true master. But--

2. The whole elder wand allegiance thing was incredibly confusing. I guess DD planned for Harry to get Draco's wand by accident? Harry won out of sheer dumb luck, in the end.

Yes, and that was the point at which Dumbledore's plan backfired, if you remember what Harry was saying. He didn't plan for Draco to Disarm him; Draco becoming the master and Harry's subsequent winning of the Wand from him were things Dumbledore did not and could not have foreseen.

Not saying you have to like it, you understand: just making sure you have your facts straight.

3. Snape's death - he could put up a shield charm in an instant, but he couldn't stop a snake? Arthur Weasely survived numerous snake bites, while Snape died in an instant. Very inconsistent.

Hardly inconsistent. In the case of Arthur, the snake struck in a panic on the spur of the moment, without any really precise aiming. Thus Arthur was bitten several times, but never in the neck or any other similarly vital place. In the case of Snape, it was a premeditated swipe at his vitals. Which is why Snape took his bite on the neck, which, I'm sure you realize, is BAD. And Snape, I think, was at a loss for how to penetrate that protective bubble. A moment's hesitation resulted, and that hesitation cost him his life.

5. Calvinism & predestination - After all the talk about choices, it really came down to destiny in the end. Harry has a Horcrux, and must die. Voldemort is a psychopath, and must end unredeemed. The Slytherins are bad, and must remain so. There is a real sense of predestination in Harry Potter that I personally do not agree with.

I think that predestination problem has been present in the series since the Causal Loop of PoA, actually. :grumble:

Thanks, Leon!!! :tu:

One of the critics I heard was a fan of the series as such, but only lukewarm about DH, and since his usual critiques are something I really enjoy because they're witty and in-debt, I would be interested why he was so slightly let-down by the end. I thought that some critics might have blogs or so (and since I'm bad in remembering names, especially the names of critics - you see where I'm coming from). I'll try google for a start :)

My disappointment with the book stems from the realization that I had pretty much completely misunderstood the series' purpose and message.

Based on my interpretation of the previous six books, I thought the series was about forgiveness, putting aside prejudice, and understanding the far-reaching consequences of our actions...to that end, I thought that Harry would need to come to terms with his animosity toward Draco and Snape in some significant way order to succeed in his mission. Symbolically this would be a reckoning between Gryffindor and Slytherin.

I had not really considered the extent to which JKR really, really, really wanted to discuss death and the acceptance of vs fear of death.

In hindsight, I should have considered it - based on JKR's interviews, this was a huge subject for her.

So in my case - my initial disappointment was - "okay, what I thought I was understand and interpreting for five years was totally wrong!"

Then I had to decide whether I liked or disliked the message of the series, as I understand it now - with Deathly Hallows as the final book.

I'm not sure I do, honestly. While I agree that one should not fear death, there was something I found very unsettling about the way death was embraced in this book, particularly in regards to James, Lily, Lupin and Sirius greeting Harry in the Forest. I also found Dumbledore to be more manipulative than benevolent, as I had always considered him in the past. Harry made some decisions in Deathly Hallows that I found distressing. I felt that Ron had regressed with his sulky behavior on the camping trip, effects of the Horcrux notwithstanding.

And of course all of these characterizations are valid - they were just disappointing to me because they contradicted my earlier understanding of those characters. Again - I had to incorporate this new information into my overall understanding of the character, and decide all over again if I liked or disliked the character.

Obviously it's JKR's story - I guess I am disappointed because now that I (think I) understand her story, I'm not sure I actually like it. Or at least I don't like it as much as I did when I had misunderstood it.

I certainly don't mean this as a "bash"; I don't like strawberry ice cream either, and that's not a bash on strawberries or people who like strawberries. It's just a matter of personal preference.

:love:I'd like to start by saying that I love and enjoy the Harry Potter series more than any other books I've read. Furthermore, I admire J.K. Rowling and consider her a great and talented author.:love:

However, I must admit that Deathly Hallows did not live up to my expectations. For the most part, I was satisfied with the book up until the last part of the Battle of Hogwarts chapter.

There were a few things in that first two-thirds that bothered me, though. I was disappointed that Ron destroyed the locket horcrux rather than Harry. After Dumbledore had met with Harry alone to share with him the information he had gathered about the horcruxes and then even took him only along to get the locket horcrux where he came close to being killed by the inferi, I thought that he had earned the right to be the one to destroy it. It was perfectly understandable, imo, that Ron and Hermione would help in the locating and attaining of the horcruxes and be Harry's backup, but I really expected Harry to destroy the horcruxes as that was the assignment Dumbledore gave him and Harry deserved to more than anyone else. But instead Harry doesn't get to destroy any except the diary and that's all the way back in book 2. Each time I kept thinking surely he'll destroy this one, but no. I know some would say he destroyed the one in himself by letting Voldemort kill him, but Voldemort was at least half responsible on that one and that horcrux is in a different category to me anyway.

Starting with the end of the Battle of Hogwarts, there are six parts or groups of related parts that caused me considerable disappointment. First, I found the deaths of Fred, Lupin, and Tonks to be unnecessary. In the case of Fred, I feel its horrible to kill off a twin. I understand the theory that the Weasley family was too big to not lose at least one member. However, I doubt that is always the case in war. But if one had to go I would have preferred Charlie. It would still have been sufficiently sad especially when you see Molly crying over him as she would. Then Lupin and Tonks both dying when they were still newlyweds and had just had a baby was also too horrible to me to have expected to happen or accept. Dobby's death broke my heart and the details of his burial kept me in tears the whole scene through, but I accepted his death as I knew that some characters would die and expected a few of them would be well-liked characters,too. However, the death of Remus, like that of Fred, was just too much. Harry had already lost his father, mother, godfather, and his greatest protector Dumbledore, imo, he shouldn't have lost any more parental figures. With Remus goes Harry's last living connection to his parents. So between Remus and Tonks, I would prefer at least Remus to survive.

The second thing that bothered me toward the end of this book was about Dumbledore's attitude and behavior towards Harry. The series imo has led us to see Dumbledore as a wise, intelligent, caring and kindly old man. And, like Hermione, I was sure he loved Harry. After Harry and Dumbledore' discussion near the end of OotP, I was convinced of it. I always thought Dumbledore was trying to help Harry to survive. I believe it was in HBP, that Harry even asks Dumbledore if what he was showing him would help him to survive. I know in DH when Harry talks to Dumbledore in Harry's head, it is revealed that Dumbledore had a hunch that Harry might survive since Voldemort had taken his blood and so forth. But to tell you the truth even though the chapter made me feel better, I still feel betrayed and yes, he dropped down a few pegs in my esteem. I'd really rather have him back the way he was portrayed in the other six books.

My third problem with the ending was with Harry being a Horcrux. I was not one of those fans that believed this, in fact, it wasn't until earlier this year that I learned of it when I read about it. The mere idea of it was abhorent to me. So I didn't believe it. Anyway, I was unpleasantly surprised to see it was true. Furthermore, I thought it was horrible for Harry to be expected to give himself over to be murdered like that without even being able to fight back. I felt sick as Harry walked to his death. I had to stop myself from slamming the book shut and if I hadn't Known Harry was going to be alive at the end of the book, (yes, I peeked. It helps me prepare) I wouldn't have read the rest of the book or at least never read the ending again. On the positive side, after rereading the ending, I was able to appreciate the beauty of Harry's sacrifice. "No greater love hath any man than he lay down his life for his friends" (Coincidentally, this is my favorite verse in the Bible) But still apart of me would have preferred Harry had never been a Horcrux and had not had to walk to his death like that.

Fourth, I always believed Harry is a powerful wizard. I believe his Patronus and Shield Charms both show this. He has also demonstrated that he quickly learns new spells when he is motivated enough. But Harry is not so much the studious type, like Hermione and often requires a life and death situation to be properly motivated. The raw power is still there. It just needs him to practice and learn to harness it. However, JKR chose to downplay Harry's innate power and growing skill in using it because it didn't fit well with her Harrycrux/self-sacrifice for love plans. But I would have liked to see a more active duel at the end. Through all these books, Ive been waiting for that final showdown in which Harry would win and kill Voldemort because he's the one who has to in order to save everybody. The long conversation and circling, I liked, but I wanted Harry to win on more than the confusing technicality of the elder wand ownership and the blood protection. I, also, got a little tired of Harry using expelliarmus all the time and I thought "Oh please not again". I expected Harry to have been learning and practicing spells at least since the end of his sixth year in preparation for that final duel. It sure seemed like he had a lot of free time on his hands as they spent all those many monthes camping out. And I Know they packed all the books they could ever need. I would have thought they would have used that time and the books to prepare Harry. I would have liked to see him win with a combination of his magic skills, quick thinking, and maybe some device that helps him channel his raw power compensating him for not having as many years to practice as Voldemort.

Fifth, the ending was too abrupt for me. It seemed like one minute they were ending a battle and the next the trio was finishing a brief conversation with Dumbledore's portrait, then bang Harry wants a sandwich and wants to go to bed. Harry telling Hermione and Ron all that had happened since they separated and their reactions was barely mentioned. Also, there were no funerals or memorial services. Plus, I would have liked to see how they were going to go about the repairs and cleanup of Hogwarts. And since the muggleborns,(as well Harry and Ron) had missed an entire year of school, and the education of those who did attend was certainly not up to Hogwarts' usual standards with Death Eaters teaching two of the classes and a bunch of students having to hide out in the Room of Requirement weeks before the Battle took place, I would like to have seen if the students would be offered the opportunity to redo the year and who would accept. And would the trio at least get to take their Newts.

Finally, I would have liked to see the epilogue tell about the jobs they chose and include more of the characters in it. Also, I hated that it was so very many years later. Harry just doesn't seem like Harry anymore then. I don't know how to explain the feeling. Instead, imo, it should have been between 3 to 5 years later.

Well sorry this is so lengthy, but I condensed it as best I can. Oh, and despite all this I still think it is a :love: great book :) and I know it is impossible to live up to everyone's expectations even if she were to try.

I wouldn't say i'm dissapointed in DH but i thought it could of been longer and a different Epilogue...I still think that all the theories we all have come up with was way more interesting than what actually happenned but i still thought DH was pretty good.

The last book somewhat disappointed me.....
It disappointed me too !

There are still so many questions unanswered, namely how could Voldy keep his Phoenix wand after 14 years when he was in the state of vapormort ...
The second half of HP story was based upon it (from the end of the 4th book)

The first chapters of DH are too lengthy. The death of the Muggle study prof, a new character we haven't known till now, is really unecessary. Who care ?

The effect of the locket is too much The Lord of the rings !

Our three young heros spent months and months in the forests without doing anything ! We have the impression that JKR tried to lengthen the story so as it could end by the end the the school year !

There is flaw in the story of the sword. There was no need to make a false one. In anyway, a true gryffindor would always be able to 'summon' it. The sword had been stolen by the gobblin, yet Neville could withdraw it from the hat.

The epilogue is really poor and completely unecessary. The fact that they gave to their children the names of the old heros is no novelty !

Only the three last chapters, The forest again, King's cross, and The flaw in the plan, are interesting. I used to re-read books 1-6 many times after the first reading. Yet, I haven't been able to bring myself to re-read book 7 !

^

You need the sorting hat to summon the sword

Oh yes, it was a huge disappointment for me.

The book is too long and boring till the middle, then it speeds too much. The story about Snape and Lily is interesting but I can't see Snape crying when he sees Lily's letter and taking the bit with "love, Lily" words showered with tears. Oh my! That's not Snape! :grumble:

How the diadem was found - a misunderstanding. I can't believe that Dumbledore, knowing there's Ravenclaw's daughter in the castle, didn't question her.

The whole killing scenes - let's kill one of the twins so that one Wesley was dead, they are identical anyway ;)

All in all, I was under impression that I was reading a good fanfiction, not Rowling's work.

Oh yes, it was a huge disappointment for me.....
All in all, I was under impression that I was reading a good fanfiction, not Rowling's work.
:err: I would say that I was simply reading a fan fiction (not even good) !

... I still think that all the theories we all have come up with was way more interesting than what actually happened...
Y E S. I do agree with @MAGICalMuggle

The first chapters of DH are too lengthy. The death of the Muggle study prof, a new character we haven't known till now, is really unecessary. Who care ?

The effect of the locket is too much The Lord of the rings !

The epilogue is really poor and completely unecessary. The fact that they gave to their children the names of the old heros is no novelty !

Well I'd try justifying something here.
The first chapter is not simply about the death of a Muggle Studies teacher. It has many interactions between Voldy and Snape, between the Malfoys, and other Death Eaters. Snape gives Voldy confidential information about Harry's departure and successfully resists Voldy's legilimency, thus remains loyal in Voldy's eyes. All those turn out to be suggestive of later chapters.

The locket's effect is just a coincidence here. The inherent functions of the locket and the Ring are totally different.

The epilogue is too ideal to be true, and a little corny. I didn't expect such a happy ending, too fairy tale.
But I think the "Albus Severus" thing very touching.


The book is too long and boring till the middle, then it speeds too much. The story about Snape and Lily is interesting but I can't see Snape crying when he sees Lily's letter and taking the bit with "love, Lily" words showered with tears. Oh my! That's not Snape!
Yeah, I agree with you on that. This letter thing is too sentimental for Snape.

Frances, not only is it sentimental but also it looks as if Snape was a boy who still remains in his teenage years. Emotionally - maybe yes, maybe there were no other experiences than this with Lily but it's hard to believe Snape can behave like this - it simply doesn't fit. A man who squashes his feelings inside, he cries to read "love, Lily" words? This is incredible.

Frances, not only is it sentimental but also it looks as if Snape was a boy who still remains in his teenage years. Emotionally - maybe yes, maybe there were no other experiences than this with Lily but it's hard to believe Snape can behave like this - it simply doesn't fit. A man who squashes his feelings inside, he cries to read "love, Lily" words? This is incredible.

It makes alot of sense to me - he has concentrated all his emotions in one place. This is the only light fohim, and for everything else, he's like dead. So it's normal for his feelings to well up when he touches an actual piece of Lily - he handwriting. It was as if she was there. Her presence was there then. (there is a similar concept of Buddhism - that Buddha is present when a piece of him is there.) I can very well see why he cried.

Yoana, OK, Lily's presence - I agree. But I can't imagine Snape crying, really. In my opinion he's a man who squashes his feelings inside. Taking the part with "love, Lily" words was kinda boyish. OK, Snape and Sirius may have stuck in teenage years a lot but a man who stands face to face with Voldemort and doesn't let his real feelings go to the front of his mind and crying - OK, tears in his eyes, that's OK with me, but not crying.

The book was as if Jo didn't write it in total. Some parts felt as written by her, some parts - no. All in all, the book was simply boring in many fragments. And you could build such a great storyline with what was left after HBP!

Personally, I felt that scene was very moving, and made even more significant by Snape crying because it shows the depth of his remorse and his love for Lily. I liked the fact that Snape, as someone who is a master in hiding his feelings, would eventually drop the shield for once (as he was free to do so at the time) and cry at some point.

Him crying, in my opinion, makes what we just learned about him all the more poignant. Just my two cents :D

Personally, I felt that scene was very moving, and made even more significant by Snape crying because it shows the depth of his remorse and his love for Lily. I liked the fact that Snape, as someone who is a master in hiding his feelings, would eventually drop the shield for once (as he was free to do so at the time) and cry at some point.

Him crying, in my opinion, makes what we just learned about him all the more poignant. Just my two cents :D

Agreed. I thought it was OOC for him to break down and cry at first as well, but when Jo said in her chat that this was RIGHT after he had killed DD, I saw that scene in a whole new light. Snape was pretty evidently a mess when he fled Hogwarts anyway, and I think Lily's picture and her letter (written so shortly before her death) were just the triggers for an emotional meltdown.

And I think Severus needed that release. Badly. A little pit stop to let everything out, to purge all the grief and anger and stress and remorse he has to hide all the bloody time?....Yeah. Something he definitely needed, IMO, and long overdue.

(Plus, strategically speaking, it probably wasn't a bad idea to get rid of all that and emotionally "regroup," so to speak, before having to face Senor Psychopath again. ;))

Our three young heros spent months and months in the forests without doing anything ! We have the impression that JKR tried to lengthen the story so as it could end by the end the the school year !


Absolutely true. But be careful, you're coming awfully close to criticizing JKR as an author which is a no-no ;)

Absolutely true. But be careful, you're coming awfully close to criticizing JKR as an author which is a no-no ;)

SORRY !

As I had no expectations of the book, I was rather happy with it. Yes, parts were boring and certainly not as well done as in the previous books, but on the whole, it gave me enough to be satisfied. Besides, I never read these books for its plot per se. I liked the underlying message that underpinned the whole story. And I was able to see a great many things from an Eastern philosophy perspective that it gave me great satisfaction just to go along for the ride. I'm sure these were not necessarily intended by JKR though.

Agreed. I thought it was OOC for him to break down and cry at first as well, but when Jo said in her chat that this was RIGHT after he had killed DD, I saw that scene in a whole new light.

Shouldn't this have been in the book?

Another source of disappointment is needing to rely on the author after the fact to explain a scene so it makes sense.

Shouldn't this have been in the book?

Another source of disappointment is needing to rely on the author after the fact to explain a scene so it makes sense.

She really didn't need to explain that, did she? I thought, while it wasn't explicitly said, that it was fairly easily deduced, why he was upset.

I was not disappointed with the whole of DH. For the most part I enjoyed the book and felt it was a fitting end to the series. But there are disappointments scattered throughout the book - which is a mixture of bad editing and poor storytelling. Inconsistency with the previous books, contradictions to the previous books, blatant changes to concepts and facts previously presented with no explanation, questions left unanswered, new questions raised and not answered - the result being plot holes created throughout the series as a whole.

That being said, I still feel that Jo is - or at least has the potential to be - a brilliant writer. Harry Potter - in spite of taking 17 years and 7 books to finish - is her first published story. She plotted it out 17 years ago and stuck to her original plans very closely. The only major change that she made was not killing Arthur in OOTP and killing Lupin in DH instead. I admire her for sticking to her plan and not giving in to outside pressure to make changes. However, I think there were flaws throughout the story that can be attributed to that. As her skill as a writer grew, these flaws became more apparent and the epilogue is too much of a reflection of the novice author she was 17 years ago. It makes me sad overall because - with few changes and better editing - DH could have been a brilliant ending to the story instead of just fitting.

Some of the mistakes are small things - minor irritations that really don't affect the story or the plot overall. This is a problem that occurs with any series - particularly something on this grand of a scale. There have been little mistakes like that throughout the series. Some of those were mistakes in editing that were corrected with later printings - like the order in which James and Lily came out of Voldemort's wand in GOF. Most of them can be reconciled with a bit of thought with the information given on page. For example - in DH - Hermione's middle name was changed from 'Jane' to 'Jean'. Since this was information that Jo had revealed in an interview that had not been presented in any of the previous books, it was subject to change. But since she did give that information out, it is a change that should be explained. A little thought to the information that was given presents us with some potential explanations - Umbridge's middle name was Jane and had been presented on page so it could be that Jo didn't want Hermione to have the same middle name and changed it - or it could be that this was a deliberate mistake meant to be perceived as Dumbledore's error to make Hermione's lie about being close to him stand out. Both make sense, but we don't know what Jo's reasoning was for that. And it could simply be an editing error that will be corrected in later printings. Again, we can't know unless somebody asks or the issue is addressed by Jo. The same applies to changing the "Put-Outer" to the "Deluminator". The latter is a much better name, but there needs to be some explanation for that change. A simple comment from one of the Order - like Lupin - would have been sufficient - "Oh, I remember seeing that. Moody borrowed it from Dumbledore when we went to pick Harry up in fifth year. Glad he was finally able to come up with a better name for it than 'Put-Outer'." But these are minor things and don't affect the story as a whole.

There are other issues that stand out and become significant because they are major changes. The less significant change is to the Fidelius Charm. That was also information that had not been given in the books previously so it was something that was subject to change. However, it is also a change that goes against the idea of "fair play" to the readers - which is something that Jo had advocated many times in interviews. In giving such a detailed explanation for this on her website - and further stating that information there was true and could be trusted - it creates an issue. It is a change that puts the reader at an unfair disadvantage because we were working with incorrect information in trying to figure out what would happen next. Of course, announcing that she had changed it presents a catch 22 because that could have potentially spoiled part of the book.

What bothers me about this change is that it was completely unnecessary to make the story work. They already had a reason to see Grimmauld Place as unsafe and avoid it - the fact that Snape had been in on the secret. Regardless of what her plans were for Snape, that was a legitimate concern for them. She gave them another reason at the beginning of DH because it appeared that there was a traitor in their midst with the attack that occurred while removing Harry from Privet Dr. And we never did find out who "the source we discussed" was. In addition, she presented the fact that - once the Ministry had fallen - the Death Eaters were able to get through many protective charms and enchantments because of that. Having Hermione panic because Yaxley had grabbed her while apparating was an unnecessary complication and inconsistent overall.

They needed to go to Grimmauld Place to find out about R.A.B., the locket, and Kreacher. That was necessary. However, having them stay there for any length of time was not and that makes the inconsistencies stand out. There were other means that could have been used to cause them to go to Grimmauld Place briefly - looking for books about Dark Magic there would have made more sense than Hermione suddenly being inspired to summon a Horcrux book. The broken mirror could have been repaired with Harry deciding to try to find the other mirror to use for communication. He wouldn't have found it - but he would have discovered Regulus and won Kreacher over in the process. Once that had been accomplished, staying at Grimmauld Place was an unnecessary risk and that part of the story was inconsistent because there were so many factors presented to make that an unsuitable hide-out. But - overall - this is not a major issue and there was explanation given on page towards the extra protection and why they chose to stay there. It doesn't create a huge plot hole - just a slight disappointment with the lack of consistency in that part of the story.

Then we have a major contradiction in the form of "the Trace". In HBP, Dumbledore tells Harry that the Ministry can detect when magic is performed by anyone, but they cannot tell who performed the magic. This was not limited by the age of the wizard and it was not something that could be removed. That also tied in with the idea that magic leaves traces that can be detected - as we saw Dumbledore do in the cave in HBP. This explained why Harry got a warning in COS when Dobby did the hover charm - they detected the spell and Harry was blamed for it since he was the only wizard in residence. Simple and logical. It also explained how Tom Riddle was able to frame Morfin for the murders of the Riddle family. The spell was detected, Morfin had a previous record of attacking Tom Riddle Sr., and they went straight to him and he confessed - and his wand had been used. Again, simple and logical.

The change with "the Trace" is a blatant contradiction to that explanation and creates plot holes. If the ministry can only detect underage magic because each underage witch or wizard has a Trace upon them to reveal specifically when they do magic, then Harry should never have received a warning because Dobby cast a hover charm at Privet Dr. First - the ministry should not have even known that a hover charm was cast and - second - even if they could detect the charm, they should have known that Harry did not cast it because of the Trace. While that doesn't affect the story as a whole to a great degree, it is still inconsistent and confusing - a minor plot hole. However, Riddle murdering his father and grandparents does affect the story as a whole and "the Trace" creates a huge plot hole in this regard. If there was a specific Trace on all underage witches and wizards, then the Ministry should have known that Tom Riddle was the one to cast Avada Kedavra that night. Morfin should never have even been a suspect. And that breaks the story as a whole because 16 year old Tom Riddle should have gone to Azkaban then and there. In other words - no Lord Voldemort in power, no first war, and no Harry Potter series for us to enjoy. That is a major plot hole.

And - again - this was a change that was unnecessary. The ministry being able to detect all magic, but not who performed it would have served the purposes of the story better and given the trio more reason to be cautious regarding where they stayed in terms of choosing their hiding places. Changing that to "the Trace" did not add anything to the story at all and created a major plot hole in the basic premise of the story because the villain shouldn't have gained power in the first place.

Those are the things that bother me because they affect the story as a whole. Other issues that have been raised in this thread were primarily the result of fan expectations resulting from years of picking apart the books and interviews for clues. I never expected Harry to become some all powerful wizard because the basic premise was rooted in the fact that Harry was just an ordinary kid who was thrust into extraordinary situations by Voldemort's choices and actions. He had little choice in what he had to do because Voldemort systematically removed his choices over time and was never going to let it go. Harry was never any more powerful than anyone else - he was simply continuously thrown into situations where he had to do things that the other kids his age did not. And he did get by on luck a great deal of the time - along with a lot of help from Ron and Hermione. I always felt that was an unrealistic expectation and - quite frankly - it would have ruined the story as a whole for me if Harry had suddenly realized he was this super-powerful wizard.

The introduction of the Hallows was not entirely unexpected and there was supporting evidence for it in the previous books. I expected a twist along those lines, but I expected it to come with Gryffindor's sword rather than another wand. But I like how that played out for the most part. There are some minor inconsistencies regarding Harry's decisions about the Elder wand and the stone in the end, but they work within the story and leave openings for Jo to return to this world later on with their kids or all new characters if she chooses. The fact that "the wand chooses the wizard" was something that had been presented from the beginning and we knew that wands were important. That was something that Jo had carefully constructed and set up from the beginning.

On the other hand, Gryffindor's sword is a concept that was presented inconsistently and had contradictions. As we are shown with Neville at the end, there simply was no need to have Snape get the sword to Harry. Harry had already been presented the sword for his courage - it was already his to use. Dumbledore could have given the sword to Harry at any time in HBP. For that matter, he knew he was going to die and he knew that whatever he left in his will would be confiscated and examined by the Ministry. He could have sent - or even personally taken - the sword, the book of fairy tales, the Deluminator, the book about Horcruxes, and a letter explaining those things - directly to Privet Dr. to be waiting for Harry when he returned. Having Ron get the sword by saving Harry was dramatic and I did like that scene, but the circumstances were contrived. It could have been handled much better without the inconsistencies and contradictions.

Dumbledore's character was a big disappointment and came very close to being just as bad as Voldemort at times. It was a very fine line that came close to being crossed more than once. I have no problem with humanizing Dumbledore - I never saw him as omniscient or all powerful anyway. I liked the idea of him having walked that line himself with his relationship with Grindelwald in his youth and learning from his mistakes. That was good. But then it appears as though Harry was never anything more than a pawn and Snape didn't even rate that high - just a tool to move the pawn about. He kept secrets. He manipulated them. He let Harry watch him be murdered without preparing him for that in any way - and planned for it to happen! That was just cruelty. And all in the name of trying to make Snape look good. And it didn't work. Dumbledore was dragged through the mud for nothing. There was some explanation and redemption through his remorse in the end, but Dumbledore was tarnished and can no longer be seen as the good, wise, benevolent mentor. That was disappointing.

And that brings us to Snape's story - which is rife with inconsistencies, contradictions, unanswered questions, and horribly pathetic cliches. This was probably the biggest disappointment of DH. The foundation for this story was brilliant and the first six books set everything up perfectly. Snape was fascinating in his ambiguity and controversial in regards to his loyalty. The evidence was evenly distributed so that Snape's loyalty could easily go either way. The path to the resolution of his loyalty was created with well constructed issues and questions steadily progressing through the series. And all of that careful construction was completely dropped in DH. The questions raised were left unanswered - the issues that had been raised were completely ignored and/or apparently forgotten. So this fascinating, complex character is reduced to nothing more than a 2D caricature with no depth at all. Nothing was explained - no justification - more questions - no answers.

And - as with the other disappointments - it was completely unnecessary. The only thing that needed to be done to resolve Snape's story one way or the other was to simply answer the questions and address the issues that had been raised in the previous books. Snape being obsessed with Lily - or even believing himself to be in love - does nothing to explain his actions or his behavior. It does not answer any of the questions that were raised in the previous books. Major plot holes are created and more questions are raised about Snape. But no answers are given. Harry apparently forgets all the questions he had about Snape just because Snape believed himself to be in love with Lily. But that does nothing to explain or justify anything that Snape did. Harry's reaction is contrived and unbelievable. I was left wondering if Snape somehow managed to cast some kind of spell on Harry before he died - alter his memory somehow. Nothing else makes sense because Harry was not given any information that would justify his complete turn-around in his beliefs about Snape. Too many questions left unanswered and a whole new set of questions raised. Extremely disappointing.

As a whole, it is a brilliant story. With a bit of work and a lot of editing, DH could have been a brilliant ending to that story. As it stands, it is fitting overall, but parts are disappointing.

REMINDER.
Read and understand post #1 before posting. Critical views are to be presented in a decent and respectful language.

Any more "horribly pathetic cliches" or equally rude and disrespectful language and the poster may find him/herself temporarily demoted from the Cloak, their post deleted and maybe the whole thread closed

Overall, I loved the book, and I admit there were some incosistencies, but I mean, I'm not going to be one of those people who reads the book, just to find plot holes and mistakes, I read because I love Harry Potter. I loved the book and I can't wait for the Encyclopedia.

Perhaps one of the reason the book disappointed me is the fact that Harry ends up with Ginny.

* I don't like very much Ginny. I can't stand Ginny
* She is rude (my opinion only)
* She is not even a beauty (in the movie). (And sudenly in book 6 she became very beautiful. I don't know how they would arrange Ginny in the movie for HP6, perhaps they will have to change actress.)
* She changed boyfriends every week
* In book 2 Harry said she looked like Dobby. It's unthinkable for me that Harry could fall in love with someone who looked like Dobby, who rocked backwards and forwards in her chair !!!

An other point, I think that Harry should have named one of his children Sirius. Poor Sirius

I suggest quoting canon if you criticise certain scenes or characters. You're welcome not to like Ginny but if you say that she changed boyfriends every week you need to quote the bit you're referring to, otherwise it may be considered character bashing.

Links that may be of interest:

REVISED: Character Bashing/Worship: aka Shades of Gray (http://www.cosforums.com/showthread.php?t=108021)
Harry & Ginny (http://www.cosforums.com/showthread.php?t=109063)

I suggest quoting canon if you criticise certain scenes or characters. You're welcome not to like Ginny but if you say that she changed boyfriends every week you need to quote the bit you're referring to, otherwise it may be considered character bashing.

Links that may be of interest:

REVISED: Character Bashing/Worship: aka Shades of Gray (http://www.cosforums.com/showthread.php?t=108021)
Harry & Ginny (http://www.cosforums.com/showthread.php?t=109063)

OK. But it was only a way to say !
In book 5, Ginny first went out with Micheal Corner then she ditched him and went out with Dean Thomas.
In book 6, George said ..."But we're not selling them to our sister, not when she's already got about five boys on the go from what we've heard...'

In book 6 she split up with Dean. I do not remember whether she had been with Seamus, befor ending up with Harry !

DH was excellent book and it was disappointment at all but of course there are some parts like Harry and Voldemort's duel and the horocruxes weren't so protected like the Locket in book 6 and H/G not enough moments...

The introduction of the Hallows was not entirely unexpected and there was supporting evidence for it in the previous books.

I very much liked your analysis of your disappointments, but I was curious about the above statement. There was a lot of talk about the 11th hour introduction of an entirely new element into the story (the Hallows), and I've yet to hear anyone state what evidence conclusively led them to believe the Hallows was NOT entirely new.

Would you mind sharing what things in the previous books you felt led you to believe the Hallows were not entirely unexpected?

Thanks.

As far as I know, the only thing we have heard in connection with the Deathly Hallows, was Dumbledore's wand. Marbanks said in OoP: '...examined him personally in Transfiguration and Charms when he did NEWTs... did things with a wand I'd never seen before ..'
Anything else ?

As far as I know Dumbledore did not have the Elder wand when he did his NEWTs.

So Marchbanks' observations are no more on topic here than what Ginny did in previous books. :)

OK. But it was only a way to say !
In book 5, Ginny first went out with Micheal Corner then she ditched him and went out with Dean Thomas.
In book 6, George said ..."But we're not selling them to our sister, not when she's already got about five boys on the go from what we've heard...'

In book 6 she split up with Dean. I do not remember whether she had been with Seamus, befor ending up with Harry !

Fred and George were exaggerating and being typical overprotective brothers. Ginny actually met Michael Corner at the Yule Ball in GOF - that was discussed in OOTP. She dated him for nearly a year. After breaking up with him, she started to date Dean Thomas at the end of OOTP. She also dated him for nearly a year. Those were the only two relationships that she had prior to getting together with Harry and they were both long-term, committed relationships. That's hardly changing boyfriends every week.

I very much liked your analysis of your disappointments, but I was curious about the above statement. There was a lot of talk about the 11th hour introduction of an entirely new element into the story (the Hallows), and I've yet to hear anyone state what evidence conclusively led them to believe the Hallows was NOT entirely new.

Would you mind sharing what things in the previous books you felt led you to believe the Hallows were not entirely unexpected?

Thanks.

Thank you. :)

The thing with the HP series was that Jo rarely gave us every detail necessary to figure out exactly what was going to happen next. That was part of they mystery and the fun. For the most part, we could get a good idea of what was going to happen in general terms.

A good example of that is the Horcruxes. We were given enough to get a general idea through the diary in COS and Jo gave us additional information in an interview when she said we should question why Voldemort didn't die rather than why Harry had lived. Many came to the correct conclusion that Voldemort had split his soul and that the diary contained a piece of his soul. Some even speculated that he might have done so more than once and that the diary wasn't the only object that had been used. But we didn't have enough information to know how many times he had done that and what those objects were called. That was revealed in HBP. It was a plot development that was not entirely unexpected, but the name and number of those objects was new information.

The Hallows essentially follow that same pattern. We were told from the beginning that "the wand chooses the wizard" and that was very significant. We were also told that a witch or wizard would not get the same results from using someone else's wand. Basically, it would work for them, but not as well as the wand that chose them. And we were told that both Harry and Voldemort's wands contained a phoenix feather from the same phoenix as their core - and that phoenix had only been used for those two wands. All of that was revealed in the first book. The next clue to the puzzle came in GOF when we were shown how that affected Harry and Voldemort - their wands wouldn't work against each other because they were "brother wands".

So we knew that one - or both - of them would have to get a new wand in order to have a magical duel. The other option available was that it would end up being a physical fight in the end because of the issue of the brother wands. That was actually what I suspected would happen - I figured Harry would end up having to kill Voldemort with Gryffindor's sword because the sword had been emphasized so much throughout. But I digress. There was a lot of speculation on the significance of their wands. Many suspected that Ollivander had been kidnapped because Voldemort wanted a new wand. Many speculated that Dumbledore's wand was going to be important because of the way Jo had emphasized the fact that Draco disarmed him before he died. Many speculated that Harry would somehow end up with Dumbledore's wand. Nobody came up with the exact answer, but many came very close and we had enough information to get the general idea.

The Invisibility cloak was also introduced in the first book. We knew that it had belonged to James and that Dumbledore had it in his possession before James died. We also learned that Dumbledore did not need a cloak to become invisible. So the reason that Dumbledore had the cloak was important - so important that Jo pointed it out - just as she did with telling us that we should ask why Voldemort did not die. He didn't need the cloak to become invisible so why would he have it? That was an important question. There are also subtle hints given that Harry's cloak is unique. We see Moody's cloak being used by Arthur in OOTP and many noted that Moody's cloak did not seem to work as well as Harry's. Again, nothing was given that would give it away exactly, but we had enough to know that Harry's cloak was going to be important.

The ring was given less emphasis and the majority of the information there leaned towards the fact that it had been a Horcrux. But it was also a tie to Voldemort's heritage. The Pereval coat of arms on the ring - the fact that it had been passed down as a family heirloom to Slytherin's descendants - and so on. Rather like the "heavy gold locket" mentioned in OOTP, the ring was part of the mystery. What's interesting about the ring is that it was on the UK children's cover for HBP. It you increase the size on the image and examine it closely, you can see the mark of the Hallows on the stone. That was not something I caught myself - I have the US versions - but it was pointed out to me by someone else shortly before DH was released. I remember that someone had used photoshop to remove the crack from the ring prior to HBP to try to see what the image on the stone was, but I have been unable to find that picture. But it wasn't something that clicked for me until someone else pointed it out.

So we knew that those three things would be significant. We didn't know that they would be connected, but we were given enough to know that they were important. It's interesting to go back and read through the speculation and theories and see just how close some people came to figuring it out.

And then you have the title - Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows. There were several lines of speculation about what Deathly Hallows could mean. Spirits was the more popular line of speculation until Jo revealed a second title to make translation into other languages easier - Relics of Death. That was more consistent with the existing legends involving Hallows. The 13 Hallows of Britain or the 4 Hallows of Ireland. Magical artifacts of legend. Most believe them just to be legend - others consider the possibility that they could be real. Most - myself included - speculated that the title referred to the Horcruxs - specifically the artifacts from the founders. But there were those who speculated that the Hallows might be separate artifacts that Harry would need to find in order to defeat Voldemort.

So it wasn't entirely unexpected even though we didn't have all the pieces of the puzzle to figure it out exactly. We were given enough information to get a general idea of what it would be. And quite a few came very close. This aspect of the story was not disappointing to me at all and I feel that Jo wrote that brilliantly - giving just enough to point us in the right direction without giving it away completely.

Let me respond interspersed throughout what you've said...I'm going to see if I can agree that the Hallows themselves were foreshadowed...

A good example of that is the Horcruxes. We were given enough to get a general idea through the diary in COS and Jo gave us additional information in an interview when she said we should question why Voldemort didn't die rather than why Harry had lived. Many came to the correct conclusion that Voldemort had split his soul and that the diary contained a piece of his soul. Some even speculated that he might have done so more than once and that the diary wasn't the only object that had been used. But we didn't have enough information to know how many times he had done that and what those objects were called. That was revealed in HBP. It was a plot development that was not entirely unexpected, but the name and number of those objects was new information.

In general, I agree that she began laying foreshadowing down early, but she's never (that I can find quoted) explicitly stated when, in writing the series, she decided that the Diary was a Horcrux. Based solely on how the first two books were written (stand alone, wizard-boy-adventure style), the Diary was nothing more than what it seemed...a Diary imbued with "a memory" of Riddle. After book 3, her style of each book changed from "stand alone adventure story" to "one part of a long, larger tale, leading up to a climax in book 7". Books 4-7 really are just one big long book. I think it was in writing book 4 that it seems logical she decided to imbue the Diary with the power of being a Horcrux (in a sort of JKR-only revisionist history, since nothing really kept it from being so...of course the explanation of why Lucius gave it to Ginny really ended up having to be a pretty hard to swallow plot twist to make it fit, but otherwise, it was a useful "first horcrux" and tied the earlier stand alone books into the longer tale.

The Hallows essentially follow that same pattern. We were told from the beginning that "the wand chooses the wizard" and that was very significant. We were also told that a witch or wizard would not get the same results from using someone else's wand. Basically, it would work for them, but not as well as the wand that chose them.

True, but we are not given the mechanics of "new wands" at all. Ron's
wand breaks, but nowhere were we told whether this NEW wand would've
"picked Ron" if he'd picked it up at Olivander's before finding his first wand.
If the wand picks the wizard, ostensibly hundreds of wands could've "picked"
each wizard, and they just happen to buy the first one that "picks them"
Basically we're left with too little information on this situation, so must
infer things on our own.

And we were told that both Harry and Voldemort's wands contained a phoenix feather from the same phoenix as their core - and that phoenix had only been used for those two wands. All of that was revealed in the first book. The next clue to the puzzle came in GOF when we were shown how that affected Harry and Voldemort - their wands wouldn't work against each other because they were "brother wands".

So we knew that one - or both - of them would have to get a new wand in order to have a magical duel.

Yes. A new wand, like Ron got a "new wand" which seems to work fine
for him. Perhaps I have to have my first wand break (like Ron) for a new
wand to "pick me" (that's the only sample example I have to go on). So, I'm
Voldemort...I want to win. I break my wand, go to Olivander's and have
him find me the new wand that "picks me". Nothing about "Hallows"
yet...

There was a lot of speculation on the significance of their wands. Many suspected that Ollivander had been kidnapped because Voldemort wanted a new wand.

Agreed.

Many speculated that Dumbledore's wand was going to be important because of the way Jo had emphasized the fact that Draco disarmed him before he died.

I disagree. Having re-read that scene just recently, it's fresh in my memory and nothing about that scene led me to believe that Dumbledore's wand was at all "extra" important. It was all about the talk between Draco and Dumbledore. His wand being gone was written as a plot device to show Dumbledore's ability as a person...what he was capable of doing without a wand was to talk to Draco...to keep him mollified. If he had his wand, the dynamics would've changed. Nothing in that scene screamed "oh my gosh, it's all about Dumbledore's wand!"

Many speculated that Harry would somehow end up with Dumbledore's wand.

I will agree that this is an interesting solution. Certainly it gets Harry around the "brother wands" issue, but again, it's "somebody else's wand" which did NOT PICK HARRY and therefore should not be expected to yield up spells as well as Harry's own wand.

Again, nothing about the Hallows foreshadowed as yet...

The Invisibility cloak was also introduced in the first book. We knew that it had belonged to James and that Dumbledore had it in his possession before James died.

Actually, I dont' recall if we knew this. Didn't we learn about the "when" of the transfer in book 7 in the letter? All I think we knew before this was that it WAS James's, but Dumbledore had it, and gave it to Harry in book 1. Nothing about when Dumbledore himself actually took possession of it...in fact, I have a vague (but not definitive) feeling that we were supposed to believe Dumbledore took possession of it after James had died, but it's been forever since I read book 1.

We also learned that Dumbledore did not need a cloak to become invisible. So the reason that Dumbledore had the cloak was important - so important that Jo pointed it out - just as she did with telling us that we should ask why Voldemort did not die. He didn't need the cloak to become invisible so why would he have it? That was an important question.

To hold for Harry until he became old enough to use it? That was the impression I'd always had, from book 1.


There are also subtle hints given that Harry's cloak is unique. We see Moody's cloak being used by Arthur in OOTP and many noted that Moody's cloak did not seem to work as well as Harry's. Again, nothing was given that would give it away exactly, but we had enough to know that Harry's cloak was going to be important.

Again, I have to disagree. The thing about foreshadowing is that a writer can try to be SO subtle with it that the meaning is lost and the enjoyment surrounding it is gone. If there had been a moment in OoTP where someone said "I wonder why this doesn't work as well as Harry's" or something, then that would've stuck in my mind as an unanswered question, and I would've had an enjoyable "A-HA...so THAT'S why" moment in book 7. If, as you say, there was some mention of it in OoTP, it must've been buried in descriptive text with nothing to indicate it was foreshadowing.

Nothing about Harry's cloak indicated it was a major historical magical artifact.

The ring was given less emphasis and the majority of the information there leaned towards the fact that it had been a Horcrux. But it was also a tie to Voldemort's heritage. The Pereval coat of arms on the ring - the fact that it had been passed down as a family heirloom to Slytherin's descendants - and so on.

All of this information only served to make the Ring a suitable vessel for Voldemort's soul, as per Dumbledore's speculations with Harry in book 6.

Rather like the "heavy gold locket" mentioned in OOTP, the ring was part of the mystery. What's interesting about the ring is that it was on the UK children's cover for HBP. It you increase the size on the image and examine it closely, you can see the mark of the Hallows on the stone. That was not something I caught myself - I have the US versions - but it was pointed out to me by someone else shortly before DH was released. I remember that someone had used photoshop to remove the crack from the ring prior to HBP to try to see what the image on the stone was, but I have been unable to find that picture. But it wasn't something that clicked for me until someone else pointed it out.

That's interesting...but hardly a fair piece of "foreshadowing". Working with your artist to make sure that a special symbol appears ONLY on the books in one part of the world hardly counts, IMHO.

So we knew that those three things would be significant.

Again, we'll disagree...and that's ok. At this point, the significance I have seen JKR throw onto those items is minimal. Book 7, by all accounts, should've been a Horcrux hunt from open to close. The significance of the cloak is its use as a TOOL for Harry. Dumbledore's wand...wasn't picked up by Harry, and was buried with him, so it's significance was NIL. The ring only served as a "checked box" on the list of Horcruxes to destory.

We didn't know that they would be connected, but we were given enough to know that they were important.


See above.

And then you have the title - Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows.

This isn't foreshadowing...it's the title of the book already written. Foreshadowing had to happen in books 1-6. The title was just the
title.

This aspect of the story was not disappointing to me at all and I feel that Jo wrote that brilliantly - giving just enough to point us in the right direction without giving it away completely.

I believe we'll have to continue to disagree about this. The lack of appropriate foreshadowing, as I've posted before, was one of my major disappointments in the 7th book. I don't mind if a writer uses Chekov's gun...the problem is that the gun needs to be recognized AS a gun from Act 1. You can't plant a stick in Act 1, and turn it into a gun in Act 7 and fire it.

What should've been a major hunt for Horcruxes (which WAS what was foreshadowed) turned into ... something disappointing.

Drexxell Who says that foreshadowing is neccesary? I mean, what foreshadowed the discovery of America? Columbus has a ring with the USA coat of arms, no? What foreshadowed the achievements of Alexander the Great? His name is anagram of 'master conqueror' ?

Enirely new things can spark out from oblivion in real life, and who says that the same can't be said about Harry Potter? In the end, one of the real amazing things about Harry Potter is that it imitates real life so well.

You say that the Hallows was introduced in the 11th hour? There was like 5 months before the defeat of Voldemort, that's not '11th hour' i my book.

(Besides, the first half of the book was filled with foreshadowing until the 3 Brothers chapter, like the Ignotus stone, Xeno's locket etc.)

Yes it was a dissapointment.

Too predictable, any real surprise, not what the previous first books created.
And for sure, many stories and characters left behind. Not a ending for all.

Shouldn't this have been in the book?

Another source of disappointment is needing to rely on the author after the fact to explain a scene so it makes sense.

A very fair point indeed. :agree:

There are unecessary details in the story

1. * Bill bitten by a werewolf when it was not transformed, not at full moon. Then the lengthy explanation about it. We thought that there will be something next relating to this fact, but no.
* A victime of werewolf, hospitalized at St Mungos in the same room as Mr Weasley when he was attacked by Nagini
* And so, there are to many werewolves and half werewolves and couples of werewolves:
Werewol Lupin - Tongs
Hafl werewolf Bill - Fleur

for nothing !

2. The fact that Lord Thingy could fly without wings . It is incredible. Well it's magic ! But the detail brings nothing to the story.

2. The fact that Lord Thingy could fly without wings . It is incredible. Well it's magic ! But the detail brings nothing to the story.

Sure, but it creates such an awesome image in my mind and makes for such an amazing scene. I don't see how JKR could have written an escape scene without Voldemort flying without an aid. I can hardly imagine him on a broom...:lol: Also, it's just another way to show how incredibly powerful Voldemort is :D I loved it :)

2. The fact that Lord Thingy could fly without wings . It is incredible. Well it's magic ! But the detail brings nothing to the story.

Actually it is to show how powerful Lord Voldemort is. Nobody even knew that it was possible and everybody was astonished he could do it. It also links him with Snape because he is shown to fly at the end like Voldemort was.

Drexxell Who says that foreshadowing is neccesary? I mean, what foreshadowed the discovery of America? Columbus has a ring with the USA coat of arms, no? What foreshadowed the achievements of Alexander the Great? His name is anagram of 'master conqueror' ?

Enirely new things can spark out from oblivion in real life, and who says that the same can't be said about Harry Potter? In the end, one of the real amazing things about Harry Potter is that it imitates real life so well.

You say that the Hallows was introduced in the 11th hour? There was like 5 months before the defeat of Voldemort, that's not '11th hour' i my book.

(Besides, the first half of the book was filled with foreshadowing until the 3 Brothers chapter, like the Ignotus stone, Xeno's locket etc.)

Well... I disagree, completely. Too right you are, real life often comes without foreshadowing (but then again, it does, in many ways, and historians spend lots of time with pointing out how a certain development or event was 'in the making' for ages and could have been prevented if anyone had bothered to read the signs). Oh well. The point is - this is literature.

When a plot is developed, taken to a hiatus, and the hero only survives because an angel descends from heaven totally unmotivated, it's called Deus Ex Machina and is usually viewed to be unsatisfying for the audience/reader.

And even though I appreciate Meesha's analysis of mentions of what turned out to be the Hallows, I still feel utterly unsatisfied with the way it was done. Wizards - like Xeno Lovegood - have been searching for the 'Death Stick' for centuries to go? Victor instantly recognises the symbol? Well, why not have an issue of the Quibbler with a mention like 'Death Stick Sight In Tasmania?', among the other stuff they put on? Why not having Victor mention in Hermione's presence (during GoF) that he saw a Hogwarts student wearing the sign of a Dark wizard? That wouldn't have given away anything, would have tied in the subject early on, left ample to speculate about (which girl has a connection to Dark magic... We've only heard about the sons of Death Eaters? Was it Pansy Parkinson, possibly? - Oh, we would have had a ball with such a thing).

However, and this was my initial reason to post - when things are sprung on me without any kind of foreshadowing, I feel like reading a Whodunnit, and in the final chapter it turns out that the murderer was the cousin from Buenos Aires that wasn't mentioned a single time in the book until that point. It's just - d'oh. Unfair. 80% of my personal enjoyment of a book of this sort is derived by making guesses and see if I'm right after all. HP was about mysteries, secrets, Riddles for crying out loud - if these things weren't important, why not make things straight right from the start (Dumbledore at the end of PS - 'You wonder why he isn't dead, Harry? Let me tell you a secret - I think he split his soul and put it into inanimate objects', etc), and just tell a story how love defeats evil (Actually, this is a rhetorical question).

Someone else here said it wasn't okay to put on a stick, and make it a gun if book seven - well, I disagree once again. I'm fine with the stick, as long as it's on page. DH was a last chapter in a way. It's okay that some things are left to figure out until the very last moment, but at the beginning of the last book, all major plot points should have been introduced, and left to unfold from there on. I didn't get that feeling with the Hallows Plot. And most of all - and here I find myself agreeing with another post of Meesha, once more - so many of these things weren't necessary. What good was in the combination of stone, ring and cloak when Harry marched to meet his supposed death, since Harry was supposed to survive due to the blood connection to Voldemort, anyway? The ring could have killed Dumbledore slowly without being anything else but a very badly cursed Horcrux (poisoning Dumbledore like Katie had been poisoned, with the difference that this curse had been done by the mightiest Dark wizard of all times, making it believable why Katie would live and Dumbledore wouldn't). Why make such a big deal of Harry's cloak? We knew it worked perfectly fine and that these thingies were rare. Where did the additional benefit from making it a Hallow, come in?

I'm fine with the Elder wand plot until a certain point, but again, for an object so infamous, and so open on display, I would have preferred a different approach.

There was few things that disappointed me about dh.

-One was the idea of deathly hallows. I thought the reason they were introduced to us was becasue voldemort was going after them since he was after immortality. But they don't do anything for the story except distract harry from the horcruxes. What happens when someone has all 3 objects. Nothing it seems from what we see of harry. You just have to except death. The book needed something new. Hunting the horcruxes alone would have been boring, but I think it would have been better if voldemort had find out about the deathly hallows and was after it, and that they actually made you immortal if you had them.

-Another thing is the idea of harry being a horcruxe. I loved this. I was supporter of it before the book came out. The reason why I loved the idea was to see how voldemort would react to harry being a horcruxe. It never even crossed my mind that he wouldn't find out about it. Voldemort knowing that all his horcruxes were gone, and harry is the only thing that is keeping him immortal-should he kill him hence making himself mortal again, or not kill him, would have been interesting to see that struggle within him and what he ends up doing.
Another reason I like the idea was how harry was going to react to it. What would it do to his emotions. Harry does not have moral ambiguity to deal with in the books. He is usually too good. Jo was using the deathly hallows distraction of harry to develop his character more but I think him struggling with being a horcruxe of voldemort would have worked better. He finds out right at the end along that he needs to die, and all that is on his mind is his coming death naturally. So in the end voldemort does not even finds out about it, and we don't get harry reaction to it. That was very disappointing.

-Voldemort was very stupid in most of this book.
--he does not finds out about harrycruxe
--he does not finds out about deathly hallows. Dumbledore explaination is that voldemort wouldn't take a fairy tale seriously or investigate it more. My impression of Voldemort was that he would make an exception to that if something had the potential to make him a master of death. This is the guy that made 7 horcruxes to avoid death.
--he keep AK-ing harry despite the curse firing back, and not seem to work on harry. You would thing that after harry doesn't die the second time, that voldemort would not use the AK curse but come out with something else.
--his command of the battle of hogwarts was not impressive.
--his has incompetent deatheaters.
--his spends most the year after a wand that would give him more power when his is the most powerful wizard now that dumbldore is gone. No one can match him. He could've have used that time to come out with ways to kill harry and make his hold on the wizard world more powerful.
The only smart thing he did is put a taboo on his name.

-The whole wand thing was very confusing and not satisfying as a way to defeat voldemort. The idea that a wand changes its royality when someone is disarmed is too contrived. How many times have students disarmed eachother? How come the wands didn't change its royality than.

--The whole kings cross chapter, and its implication I didn't like. When jo said death is realistic and dumbledore is death for sure, I took that to mean that he is gone for good. No contacting the death, no coming back from death (in harry's case), no this limbo between the living and the death. None of that is realistic. I wanted harry to either die for good or not die (whatever it was that happen to him after the AK). Dumbledore despite being death explains everything to him just like the other books. Why kill him to begin with.

-The battle at hogwart was boring. Harry just going willy nilly around the school trying to figure out about the horcruxes. I think it would have worked better if he figure out what the horcruxe was, or atleast had a strong idea before coming to hogwarts. It would have been nice to see Harry, Ron and hermione going to the chamber of secrets, and see hermione destroy the cup and also not have that contrived idea of ron using parsaltongue (sp) to open the chamber.

The duel between harry and voldemort was not good. I didn't expect harry to defeat voldemort in a duel, or even duel with him in the normal sense. So a different way of harry defeating voldemort without that, and what we get in the book would'ev been better. I can't think of any now but just something different and clever.

In general, I agree that she began laying foreshadowing down early, but she's never (that I can find quoted) explicitly stated when, in writing the series, she decided that the Diary was a Horcrux. Based solely on how the first two books were written (stand alone, wizard-boy-adventure style), the Diary was nothing more than what it seemed...a Diary imbued with "a memory" of Riddle. After book 3, her style of each book changed from "stand alone adventure story" to "one part of a long, larger tale, leading up to a climax in book 7". Books 4-7 really are just one big long book. I think it was in writing book 4 that it seems logical she decided to imbue the Diary with the power of being a Horcrux (in a sort of JKR-only revisionist history, since nothing really kept it from being so...of course the explanation of why Lucius gave it to Ginny really ended up having to be a pretty hard to swallow plot twist to make it fit, but otherwise, it was a useful "first horcrux" and tied the earlier stand alone books into the longer tale.

Actually, Jo discussed this prior to the release of HBP - around the time that she revealed the title. Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince was the original title for COS. The plan while she was writing the second book was to have the plot with the Chamber of Secrets being opened and for Harry to learn about the Horcruxes and Snape being the Half-Blood Prince at that time - although she hadn't picked out the name Horcrux yet. However, while she was writing the second book, she realized that would be giving too much information away too soon and she began re-writing - removing the plot about the Horcruxes and Snape being the Half-Blood Prince. She re-named the book to Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets and chose to focus on the diary and how it was used to open the chamber. After she finished OOTP, she decided it was time to reveal that information so the plot for the Horcruxes and the Half-Blood Prince was used there instead.

So, the diary was intended to be a Horcrux the whole time - it was learning about the existence of the other Horcruxes that was removed from COS. That left the diary as the first clue with Riddle revealing to Harry that the diary contained a piece of his soul. The second part of that clue was given by Jo in an interview when someone asked her if there had ever been a question that she felt should have been asked, but hadn't. She said that we should be asking why Voldemort did not die rather than wondering about how Harry survived.

Now, I did not participate in any online discussion regarding Harry Potter until after OOTP. However, at that point, there were already many people who had put that information together to figure out that Voldemort had split his would and put part of it in the diary - explaining why he did not die when the killing curse rebounded. And - like Dumbledore - many of those people speculated that Voldemort must have done that more than once because the diary was not given any special protection and Voldemort had intended for the diary to be given to a student at some point to re-open the chamber. The clues were there and quite a few people figured it out - not everyone, but enough people figured it out to show that the foreshadowing existed. We couldn't figure out the exact plot Jo had in mind - that he had made 6 Horcruxes because he believed a 7 part soul would make him more powerful or the specific name of those objects, but we had enough information to get a general idea of what was going to happen.

True, but we are not given the mechanics of "new wands" at all. Ron's
wand breaks, but nowhere were we told whether this NEW wand would've
"picked Ron" if he'd picked it up at Olivander's before finding his first wand.
If the wand picks the wizard, ostensibly hundreds of wands could've "picked"
each wizard, and they just happen to buy the first one that "picks them"
Basically we're left with too little information on this situation, so must
infer things on our own.

Yes. A new wand, like Ron got a "new wand" which seems to work fine
for him. Perhaps I have to have my first wand break (like Ron) for a new
wand to "pick me" (that's the only sample example I have to go on). So, I'm
Voldemort...I want to win. I break my wand, go to Olivander's and have
him find me the new wand that "picks me". Nothing about "Hallows"
yet...

Actually, we are given the mechanics. Ron's original wand was a hand-me-down from Charlie because they could not afford to buy him a new wand at that time. It worked for him - probably because of the family connection - but it was technically Charlie's wand. Neville was in the same situation because he was using his father's wand. We are shown throughout that those wands worked, but we learned that they did not work as well for Ron and Neville because they were hand-me-downs.

Ron got a new wand in POA when Mr. Weasley won the 1000 galleons. They went to Ollivanders and his new wand picked him - Ron showed it to Harry when they met up with him in Diagon Alley. They had just bought it. Neville got his new wand before sixth year in HBP because his father's wand had been broken in OOTP. Like Ron, he went to Ollivanders and his new wand picked him. Neville bought his wand just before Ollivander disappeared.

We also learned in the first book that you could use another wizard's wand, but you would not get as good results with someone else's wand. And we see that throughout as well. Hermione used Harry's wand to unlock the door into the third corridor in PS/SS because she didn't have hers with her. Neville used Hermione's wand after his was broken. And so on.

And even if you buy your first wand with it picking you - and later break that wand - you would simply go through that process again. Go back to Ollivanders and let another wand pick you. The wand chooses the wizard, but that doesn't mean there is only one wand a wizard can ever use. If your wand breaks you can win the loyalty of another wand by defeating an opponent or you can buy a new one in the same manner you bought your first one - just let the wand pick you. The only part of that process that was new information in DH was the knowledge that defeating an opponent could result in their wand choosing you as its new master.

Now, this information does not relate specifically to the hallows. However, it does lay the groundwork for why the Elder wand would be sought after. If we didn't know this information, then the lore behind the Elder wand wouldn't have made much sense. Laying the groundwork is just as important as foreshadowing.

I disagree. Having re-read that scene just recently, it's fresh in my memory and nothing about that scene led me to believe that Dumbledore's wand was at all "extra" important. It was all about the talk between Draco and Dumbledore. His wand being gone was written as a plot device to show Dumbledore's ability as a person...what he was capable of doing without a wand was to talk to Draco...to keep him mollified. If he had his wand, the dynamics would've changed. Nothing in that scene screamed "oh my gosh, it's all about Dumbledore's wand!"

That was something that I missed myself. However, many people did catch that clue and there was a lot of speculation regarding Dumbledore's wand because of the emphasis that was put on Draco disarming Dumbledore - as well as the lack of mention of his wand at the end. Many people picked up on that and speculated on what happened to Dumbledore's wand and who would end up with Dumbledore's wand. You and I missed that clue - but it was there and other people picked up on it.

I will agree that this is an interesting solution. Certainly it gets Harry around the "brother wands" issue, but again, it's "somebody else's wand" which did NOT PICK HARRY and therefore should not be expected to yield up spells as well as Harry's own wand.

That is true - the missing piece of information was the fact that a wand could choose its master based on the defeat of its former master. However, Jo couldn't give us every detail. That would have been too easy. She gave us enough information to get a general idea - Harry could get around the problem of "brother wands" by getting Dumbledore's wand. How that would work was something that would be revealed in the final book. Just like we had enough information to figure out that Voldemort had split his soul and that's why he didn't die, but the final piece of the puzzle was not revealed until HBP.

Again, nothing about the Hallows foreshadowed as yet...

No, no specific foreshadowing yet. At this point, we have the groundwork laid for the reader to understand wand lore and that the wand's loyalty is important. The wand chooses the wizard and you will never get as good results when using another wizards wand. Logical deduction could be applied there for the speculation on how Dumbledore's wand might choose Harry. But the final piece of the puzzle was not to be revealed until DH.

Part of the problem here was that there were many who got sidetracked with the idea that wandless magic would be significant. I never understood where that idea came from or why it became so popular when there was so much emphasis on wands and the importance of the wand choosing the wizard. But that line of speculation did turn quite a few people away from the importance of wands. I never bought it myself. I always figured that it would come down to solving the problem of the "brother wands" rather than wandless magic being used. There was just too much emphasis on the importance of the wand choosing the wizard.

Actually, I dont' recall if we knew this. Didn't we learn about the "when" of the transfer in book 7 in the letter? All I think we knew before this was that it WAS James's, but Dumbledore had it, and gave it to Harry in book 1. Nothing about when Dumbledore himself actually took possession of it...in fact, I have a vague (but not definitive) feeling that we were supposed to believe Dumbledore took possession of it after James had died, but it's been forever since I read book 1.

Yes, we did. At the end of PS/SS, Dumbledore told Harry that James had left the cloak in his possession before he died. Earlier in PS/SS, Dumbledore had told Harry that he did not need a cloak to make himself invisible. So the clues were laid. James gave the cloak to Dumbledore before he died, but Dumbledore did not need the cloak to make himself invisible. Jo provided another clue on her website after HBP because she was asked again if there were any questions that should have been asked, but hadn't been. She revealed that the reason Dumbledore had James' cloak was important.

So we knew that James gave the cloak to Dumbledore before he died, Dumbledore did not need the cloak to make himself invisible, and that the reason he had the cloak was important. What we didn't have was the final piece of the puzzle. At this point, all we could figure out was that Dumbledore having the cloak at that time was significant.

To hold for Harry until he became old enough to use it? That was the impression I'd always had, from book 1.

I never thought that myself. The Potters knew Voldemort was after Harry - they knew they were going to have to go into hiding. The idea that James would give Dumbledore his cloak to hold for Harry instead of keeping it nearby in case it could be used to protect his family never made sense to me.

This was not a line of speculation that I followed until after Jo commented on the significance of it. And I didn't get it myself because I correlated it with the mistake in the US version because I thought the fact that Jo had wanted those lines deleted meant that Dumbledore had faked someone's death. I figured he had used the cloak to hide whoever that was. But I was wrong about that. I missed the clues about Harry's cloak being unique.

Again, I have to disagree. The thing about foreshadowing is that a writer can try to be SO subtle with it that the meaning is lost and the enjoyment surrounding it is gone. If there had been a moment in OoTP where someone said "I wonder why this doesn't work as well as Harry's" or something, then that would've stuck in my mind as an unanswered question, and I would've had an enjoyable "A-HA...so THAT'S why" moment in book 7. If, as you say, there was some mention of it in OoTP, it must've been buried in descriptive text with nothing to indicate it was foreshadowing.

Having someone speculate on whether Harry's cloak was unique would have been too obvious. And Harry had to be surprised to discover that as well. Foreshadowing is not making an obvious statement on page. Foreshadowing is a subtle clue that points you in the right direction without giving the answer away.

Now, this was also something that I overlooked - again, because I believed the cloak was going to be significant in regards to someone's death being faked. But many others did catch the foreshadowing regarding the cloak. Moody's cloak did not work as well as Harry's did. Speculation on why there was a difference between Moody's cloak and Harry's was very popular.

Nothing about Harry's cloak indicated it was a major historical magical artifact.

Not without the final piece of the puzzle that was given in DH. That's how foreshadowing works. You give subtle clues to point the reader in the right direction, but you don't make the answer obvious. You don't want people to figure it out exactly. We were given enough to know that Harry's cloak was important. Why it was important was revealed in DH.

All of this information only served to make the Ring a suitable vessel for Voldemort's soul, as per Dumbledore's speculations with Harry in book 6.

Almost all of it. There was still the question of how and why Dumbledore was injured by the ring. Some speculated that it was because it was a Horcrux - which led to speculation on how Harry would possibly be able to destroy such things. But that didn't fit because the diary was also a Horcrux and Ginny used it for months without suffering such a curse. She was possessed, but she didn't end up with a blackened and withered hand. Harry had the diary in his possession for a while and used it, but he didn't end up with a blackened and whithered hand either. And Dumbledore had told Harry there was a powerful curse upon the ring.

So the question was - how did Dumbledore get injured by that curse? Was it merely his attempt to destroy the Horcrux or was there more to it? The ring also lays some groundwork regarding the Peverell coat of arms - which was depicted on the UK children's cover art.

That's interesting...but hardly a fair piece of "foreshadowing". Working with your artist to make sure that a special symbol appears ONLY on the books in one part of the world hardly counts, IMHO.

Actually, the cover art for all the books is quite revealing and has a lot of foreshadowing. The beauty of it is that each individual cover provides different foreshadowing. The US cover for POA foreshadows the Marauders being animagi. The stag, the dog, and the rat all appear on the cover - along with the werewolf. Of course, these would be minor clues because only those getting those particular books or those with internet access would see them - but a lot of fans have internet access and revealing the cover art for the books became a huge deal as the series became more successful. How many hours did readers spend pouring over the covers of HBP and DH looking for clues?

Definitive proof - no. But foreshadowing is not meant to be definitive proof - just subtle clues to point you in the right direction. The inclusion of the ring on the UK children's cover for HBP caused as much speculation as the inclusion of the symbol for the Hallows on the UK children's cover for DH. And Jo knew that it would because we had progressed to picking through any possible piece of information for a clue by the time HBP came out.

Again, we'll disagree...and that's ok. At this point, the significance I have seen JKR throw onto those items is minimal. Book 7, by all accounts, should've been a Horcrux hunt from open to close. The significance of the cloak is its use as a TOOL for Harry. Dumbledore's wand...wasn't picked up by Harry, and was buried with him, so it's significance was NIL. The ring only served as a "checked box" on the list of Horcruxes to destory.

A common misconception really. But one I never agreed with. Having the final book focus solely on the Horcruxes would have made for a very short book indeed - not to mention boring and redundent. The Horcruxes were not interesting enough to carry an entire book - particularly since we learned the bulk of the information we needed about them in HBP.

No, the Horcruxes were the tools - not the plot. We were given enough information to figure out that Harry's cloak was important, Dumbledore's wand and wand lore was important, and the ring was important. We were not given enough information to figure out exactly how these things would be important, but that is how it is supposed to work. Foreshadowing is not making obvious statements on page - it is giving subtle clues that point the reader in the right direction without giving away the answer. You don't want to give the readers too much information - you don't want them to figure out exactly what will happen. The final pieces of the puzzle were saved for the last book so we would not be able to figure it out exactly. We had enough to get a general idea - nothing more.

This isn't foreshadowing...it's the title of the book already written. Foreshadowing had to happen in books 1-6. The title was just the
title.

The title provides foreshadowing as well. That's why Jo never wanted to reveal the titles too soon. The title reveals a significant part of the plot. Each title reveals something of the plot. The title for DH provided a clue towards a significant plot point. And a lot of people came very close to figuring out what that might be. Again, it wasn't anything that would give away the exact answer - but foreshadowing never gives the exact answer. It just points you in the right direction.

I believe we'll have to continue to disagree about this. The lack of appropriate foreshadowing, as I've posted before, was one of my major disappointments in the 7th book. I don't mind if a writer uses Chekov's gun...the problem is that the gun needs to be recognized AS a gun from Act 1. You can't plant a stick in Act 1, and turn it into a gun in Act 7 and fire it.

What should've been a major hunt for Horcruxes (which WAS what was foreshadowed) turned into ... something disappointing.

I think the confusion here is what appropriate foreshadowing is for the most part. You are talking about obvious clues rather than foreshadowing. Foreshadowing is a subtle hint that points you in the right direction without giving the answer away. An obvious clue gives specific information away that could potentially allow the reader to figure out the exact answer - and that's what you want to avoid if you want to maintain the mystery.

The Horcrux hunt was not enough to carry an entire book. As it stood, the amount of time Jo wasted on the hunt was boring and redundant. That was one of the things I found disappointing about DH - far too much time was spent following the trio around moving from forest to forest with one dead end after another. I was yawning through those chapters and found myself skimming rather than reading. I always felt that the trio should have located the locket and the cup fairly quickly and returned to school using their status as students as a cover to search for the unknown Horcrux - which I felt was the tiara Harry saw in the Room of Requirement. I still think that would have been a lot more interesting than following them around from forest to forest with all those dead ends. The hunt was destined to be boring - and wasting so much time on it very nearly collapsed the plot of the book.

There were things that disappointed me about DH - which I already discussed - but the subplot of the Hallows was not one of them. That was one of the few things that was actually consistent with the previous books and made sense to me. I didn't catch all the clues for that prior to DH, but I remembered them as I was reading and the pieces fell into place.

I'm much more disappointed with things like the contradiction presented by the Trace and the inconsistency regarding how the sword of Gryffindor had to be presented. The contradiction with the Trace creates a huge plot hole in the series because - under Moody's explanation in DH - Voldemort should have been sent to Azkaban at the age of 16 for murdering his father and grandparents. I find that much more disappointing.

I thought DH was perfect to the last word. It was wonderfully written, very gripping and the characters were fascinating to read even more than before.
I thought the same. I loved every line while reading the book.
I didn't think any chapters to be boring.... in my opinion everything was quite well composed.

It's not my favourite book but it wasn't a disappointment for me. It was brilliant. I think some people just built themselves up for it and their expectations were so high that nothing could really live up to them.

To me, DH was not a disappointment in ANY way. Yes, I would have liked to see more of my favorite characters, but if JKR tried to appease all of us, the book would be about 100,000 pages long. I felt very satisfied by the book itself, as well as by the ending.

I thought that it was poor story with too many gaps in the HP world. When reading it I felt like she rushed it to get it out. However in the Stephen Fry audio book version, he did such a good job at reading this book that he actually made the book average and the epilogue sounds better than it really is. Overall a very poor ending for a poor book. I honestly have read fan fiction better than DH.

I found another thing that annoyed me.
Everything was so easy, the escapes of the trio several times and what most annoyed me was the huge amount of new random spells. For most every situation Hermione had another spell up in her sleeve and those even made mostly no sense. They were just inventions to get them out of miseries without problems.

I found another thing that annoyed me.
Everything was so easy, the escapes of the trio several times and what most annoyed me was the huge amount of new random spells. For most every situation Hermione had another spell up in her sleeve and those even made mostly no sense. They were just inventions to get them out of miseries without problems.

Yes, I know, this bugged me, too. Obviously, Hermione is supposed to be a genius and all, but there were a lot of moments when I thought 'now she's laying it on thick'. It was just too convenient.

For example - the pretty unceremonious way in which she disposed of her parents. Of course, they had to be brought out of the 'danger zone', but I would have preferred it if she had just said something like 'Kingsley and Mr Weasley helped me with them and changed their memories'. There were a couple of situations when it would have been possible IMO to make her appear more 'real', less of a convenient plot device.

Yes, I know, this bugged me, too. Obviously, Hermione is supposed to be a genius and all, but there were a lot of moments when I thought 'now she's laying it on thick'. It was just too convenient.


Yes, that's what many people have been saying. Another thing she did too easily: It's been said quite a few times throughout the series, and Harry tells it to Mrs. Cattermole in chapter 13, The Muggle-born Registration Committee-"It (the Patronus) is the only spell she ever has trouble with." But when they're in the cafe on Tottenham Court Rd., she says she can do the amazing talking Patronus, which not even Harry, the Patronus master, has done. This is stretching it. And I felt that her little handbag was kind of crazy, too.

Hello everyone (for anyone who remembers me, hey! I came back.)
Could someone point me in the direction of the original disappointment thread, from July? I searched and couldn't find it. Cheers.

EDIT: Sorry, I found it!

I wanted to find my original feelings on first reading the book because I have finally re-read it fully for the second time, slowly. And I found I enjoyed it more the second time, I think because I wasn't reading it with one eye shut waiting for death/surprises; you know, all the tension was gone. On my 1st reading some things that annoyed me--the drawn out camping section, for example-- didn't annoy me this time. I actually, in retrospect, like the trio interaction because it's the last time we'll have it. Also, I realised that they had to have this period of uncertainty and fear to reach the end. On my second reading I also appreciated how very well written the book is, and I picked up some nostalgic references to previous books that I really liked. Other things that bothered me the first time, like minor plot holes on the Fidelius Charm etc, didn't bother me because they're not that important. I also loved the epilogue.
BUT my main problems with the book remain, unfortunately. And before I start, these disappointments are not due to high or unrealistic expectations. Or from not understanding what happened in the end. My only expectation on opening the book was finding out, finally, the whole story. So here goes:

1. Voldemort's downfall

By this I don't just mean how he died, I mean his complete lack of credibility as a villain, and not just a villain, THE villain. Much of this has been said before but I think it's an important point for people who don't understand why I, and others, were disappointed with the book. Voldemort comes across as this unbelievable idiot, to put it bluntly. He tells us in chapter one that he now understands what he didn't understand before. What exactly is he talking about here? Because when you think about it, he understands nothing and this decreases as the book goes on, to the point where he's almost comical at the end. All I can think what he meant when he says this at the start is that he found out from Ollivander about the twin cores and so he thinks he knows now why he couldn't kill Harry. I had thought he knew this since book 4 when their wands interacted like that. I thought he would have realised this was the reverse spell effect (Sirius realised it) and would therefore logically think their wands had a connection. But apparently not, because he has only recently found out about this, and about the Elder Wand. So his "I understand everything" bit is a joke because he doesn't understand anything except he needs a new wand, and he doesn't even understand anything about the Elder Wand, because if he did, he would have known had Snape actually been it's master, it wouldn't have acted against him and killed him.
Voldemort also doesn't know:
--What happened when DD died and what Draco actually did to get the DEs into the castle
--That the room he hid his Diadem in was full of other hidden items and therefore can obviously be accessed by other students (JKR repeated, a few times, the reason why VM thinks he alone knows about the ROR in the book, almost as if she knew people would be going, THAT IS SO STUPID)
--That the connection between he and Harry was, or even could be, because of a Horcrux (this is the worst--even WE figured that out)
--That some of his soul has already been destroyed and twice someone accessed the Cave without him knowing--what is the point, seriously, of all the protections if he has NO IDEA when they are penetrated? I've been saying this since HPB and hoped we would get a sufficient answer. But all we get is Voldemort himself wondering the same thing. Having characters asking themselves questions we also want answers to, instead of giving us the answers, is pretty annoying.
--That Harry is reading his mind at certain pivotal moments but he can't do the same--when they were in the Shrieking Shack, surely VM would have known Harry was in the next room, the way Harry knew when he was near? Why is this a one-way ariel? VM is not using occlumency against Harry, or else how could he access his mind? So where is this blockage?
--That taking Harry's blood will affect him when he goes to try kill Harry. I can accept VM doesn't understand the Power of Love stuff but he made that mistake once, and says it himself in GoF. So why don't you learn from your many mistakes, Tom?

By the time the final duel comes about we have a complete role reversal--Harry knows everything and VM is the weak one. I like the idea of this because it does make sense, in a nice poetic way, but, IMO VM has become a joke at this point because of his complete lack of knowledge about anything. Which brings me to:

2. The final duel

I know there's a thread for this somewhere but it's the main reason I was disappointed with the book, on all readings of it. It's so complex and hinged on so many doubts and chances. This would be OK if it was just one thing--the wand allegiance, say--but it's not. Previous reactions I got on here to saying I found the ending confusing make me reluctant to say it again (some people think it's not confusing, fair enough, but this doesn't mean I'm slow or anything) but it's true. I had to, again, stop and work out my interpretation of the section starting from VMs first killing curse in the Forest and ending in the Great Hall. So is it meant to be open to interpretation? Did Harry win on a fluke--Draco's disarming of DD on the Tower? Why does DD say, firstly, that he meant Snape to have the wand, then a few pages later Harry is telling VM DDs plan was for the wand's allegiance to die with him? Is that the 'flaw in the plan' and is that the only reason VM could be defeated?
I'm not looking for someone to answer these for me because they are questions everyone has a different interpretation on, or so I've read from various posts. I personally would have preferred a clear-cut ending that told me everything I wanted to know. I know some people like the ambiguity, and fair enough, but I don't at all--and I'm not saying I wanted Harry to be some larger than life super-hero, either. But, actually, this is almost what he becomes, esp to the people standing around the Great Hall watching him defeat VM, all of whom must have absolutely no idea what is going on or what they are talking about.
Then we have the abandonment of the Deathly Hallows. I get the reason JKR introduced these, and I get the symbolism of Hallows Vs Horcruxes and how Harry had to choose the right path to get where he had to go. But I don't think this is executed very well. They just end up being pretty pointless, as well as giving another of about five reasons why Harry defeated Voldemort--just in case the plot wasn't already full of them.

Well I was disappointed by certain sections and extremely moved by others. Though my first reaction was extr3eme disappointement because so many of my questions had not been answered and what I had been so looking forward to, a Snape/Harry confrontation, did not happen. Dumbledore fell sharply in my estimation until Jo outed him and then I could understand him and his motives better.

I did not like the portrayal of Lily Evans very much. Maybe after more readings, I may change my mind.

Voldemort came across a gullible fool who seemed incapable of holding on to the position of a Dark Lord imo. He was incompetant and so foolish in DH imo that I wonder why it took so many years to defeat him.

Snape who was the most controversial character and who was the most mysterious and the one of the most eagerly looked forward to character imo was less than a pawn and he died so pathetically I felt.

I must read the DH a few times more and I feel I will surely like it better. The first time I did not like it so much and now after almost six months it has kind of grown on me, so I live in hope.

Well I was disappointed by certain sections and extremely moved by others. Though my first reaction was extr3eme disappointement because so many of my questions had not been answered and what I had been so looking forward to, a Snape/Harry confrontation, did not happen. Dumbledore fell sharply in my estimation until Jo outed him and then I could understand him and his motives better.

I did not like the portrayal of Lily Evans very much. Maybe after more readings, I may change my mind.

Voldemort came across a gullible fool who seemed incapable of holding on to the position of a Dark Lord imo. He was incompetant and so foolish in DH imo that I wonder why it took so many years to defeat him.

Snape who was the most controversial character and who was the most mysterious and the one of the most eagerly looked forward to character imo was less than a pawn and he died so pathetically I felt.

I must read the DH a few times more and I feel I will surely like it better. The first time I did not like it so much and now after almost six months it has kind of grown on me, so I live in hope.

Buffybot, I read your entire post, and I respect your opinion and will not try to answer your questions, since you probably will not agree with me anyway. I can only say that I disagree with your take on the ending. I did not think the ending was ambiguous at all. I thought it was very well thought out and explained, but it did require some thinking. I thought the book was absolutely brilliant. In my opinion, it is the best in the series, and one of the best books ever written.

Looking back at the story now though, I can agree that VM did seem pretty foolish, and the argument that he is so brilliant that he doesn't plan for the simple things got really old, e.g. a house-elf getting past his cave traps, using AK over and over again on Harry after it has proven to be ineffective, etc. Also, he put his trust in to some completely worthless people, and as the most accomplished occlumens/legilemens in the world (according to Snape) he sure does get lied to a lot.

The other thing that really bothered me was how Ron got into the COS to get the basilisk fang. It was obviously a plot device to keep the book moving, but it was a little too convenient that Ron remembered the exact sound that Harry made 5 years prior (while he was under duress because his sister's life was in danger). I definitely had a problem with that, but I guess I did exactly what Jo did and just excused it to get on with the story.

I liked the book, there was only one thing that overall bothered me and I have shared it on a few other threads. I was really disappointed that none of the Slytherins stayed to fight. The whole of the six first books are talking about how the houses need to unite and divided they will fall, but then in the end not one stayed! Sure Slytherin was represented by Sluggy and when we found out that Snape was good. But I really would have liked to see at least one student stay to unite the students.

But that would be very un-Slytherin like. They would only join the side that they knew was going to win and only if it was in their best interest.

But that would be very un-Slytherin like. They would only join the side that they knew was going to win and only if it was in their best interest.
I understand that. But for me I think the series gives plenty of examples of people that are in one house, but could belong in another. For example, Herimone could be Ravenclaw, Neville could be Hufflepuff, etc. So, that being said I thought there would have to be someone in the Slytherin house that had some other qualities and characteristics of another house and those characteristics would have kept them rooted at the table to stay and fight. :)

But for me I think the series gives plenty of examples of people that are in one house, but could belong in another. For example, Herimone could be Ravenclaw, Neville could be Hufflepuff, etc. So, that being said I thought there would have to be someone in the Slytherin house that had some other qualities and characteristics of another house and those characteristics would have kept them rooted at the table to stay and fight. :) I agree that it would have been nice for one or more of the Slytherins to take a stand and fight the good fight. Slughorn is the only one who does it. I figure that we are dealing with children who would been going against their parents and the side that currently holds all the power if they suddenly switched sides. And the Carrows had done a pretty good job of brainwashing the students, I think.

I agreewith the whole slytherin thing. I didnt like the whole portrayal of the slytherins being the bad guys all the time. slughorn and snape ended up being good. but I still think that DH was a joy to read and I will argue with anyonee who dissagrees :p

perhaps that was the crux of my disappointment with book 7: nothing moved me enough. because nothing was new enough. even the hallows were like, ok, moving on, when are they going to see everyone at hogwarts again? also, I look at dh's dumbledore as gay and not the other books' dumbledores because the fact was revealed after the seventh so...

The traits that most clearly define a Slytherin: cunning, smart. NOT brvae. If they had a choice between staying in there and fighting or going to a safe place outside of the battle so that everyone else could do the dirty work, they'd definately choose the first. Notice how Draco, your average Slytherin, didn't use any direct fighting in his plot to get Dumbledore? He just fixed a cabinet, and the Death Eaters and Snape came and did all the work. So I don't think that DH's portrayal of their cowardice was incorrect. Snpae was just different; he only wanted to be in Slytherin because he would be able to join Voldemort then, not because he defined one. He was far too brave to be a natural Slytherin. Like Harry, he probably asked to be in the house he was in.

:gryff:I think that some parts of the book was a bit disapointing but then some parts were better then i had hoped.

By this I don't just mean how he died, I mean his complete lack of credibility as a villain, and not just a villain, THE villain. Much of this has been said before...
2. The final duel

I shortened your post in the quote, but I absolutely agree with you on pretty much every point you make. :tu:

Voldemort was such a bitter disappointment indeed.

I was disappointed in book 7. I really wasn't feeling the beginning or middle, but once it FINALLY got to Hogwarts is when I started into it. Before that, it just felt, excessive and that she took too long with the plot before it got to Hogwarts. I'm not sure what it is I'm saying, but all in all, loved it towards the end. Of course I HATED the very end. I need some closure for goodness sake!!!

The traits that most clearly define a Slytherin: cunning, smart. NOT brvae. If they had a choice between staying in there and fighting or going to a safe place outside of the battle so that everyone else could do the dirty work, they'd definately choose the first. Notice how Draco, your average Slytherin, didn't use any direct fighting in his plot to get Dumbledore? He just fixed a cabinet, and the Death Eaters and Snape came and did all the work. So I don't think that DH's portrayal of their cowardice was incorrect. Snpae was just different; he only wanted to be in Slytherin because he would be able to join Voldemort then, not because he defined one. He was far too brave to be a natural Slytherin. Like Harry, he probably asked to be in the house he was in.

I don't believe that to be true. People change and this is shown in the series by the use of patronus. Peter Pettigrew was a Gryfindor but by the time he'd grown up his Gryfindor bravery had diminished. The sorting hat judges on the present character it gets put on. It can't interpret the future. Snape probably was a Slytherin character up until Lily died were he had a dramatic change in character as well as priorities etc. Dumbledore shows this by saying "You know, I Sometimes think we sort too soon." There is no mention either of any hesitation when the sorting hat is placed on Snape's head.

When it comes to Death Eaters i'd call it loyalty and not bravery. They follow orders but they don't go risking their skins for just anyone.
As for the DH portrayal of the Slytherin fight, I think it was pretty true but I think a lot of it was for peer pressure. There were probably a few of them thinking 'maybe we should help?' but as a group, and House, they didn't act out. None of them were to their belief under threat due to pure blood etc. They maybe didn't see the point in fighting for something which didn't (to their belief) involve them. Parkinson seemed to do her best to keep everyone in the same thinking. She supports the Dark Lord and suggests handing Harry in to save their own skins. Malfoy seems to have a change of character too... but killing someone isn't bravery. He could have easily killed Dumbledore in a heartless manner but it shows there is more to him that he didn't. There was a lot at risk if he didn't. I think he thought about the task too much and couldn't carry it out, possibly his feelings got tangled up in it al.

To me, being Slytherin doesn't mean that one isn't brave but that they don't value it more than ambition or cunning. Remember, people choose the house they get into, not the hat. And this choice is either what they aspire to me or what they believe to be important.

Hermione was the cleverest witch of her age and clearly being knowledgeable was important to her. But not moreso than bravery, compared to that it was just "books and cleverness". Bravery came first, and all her knowledge was often used to further her beliefs and her efforts in their fight against Voldie, which is why she was sorted into Gryffindor.

Neither Ravenclaw nor Hufflepuff mention anything about bravery in their house traits, yet they both fought. And that they did doesn't mean that they need to be resorted as Gryffindors. They probably fought for different reasons. The Gryffindors fought becuase they face problems head on (bold) and because they had to defend those who were vulnerable (chivalry). The Hufflepuffs fought because everything Voldemort was about was an affront to their values (fairness and community). The Ravenclaws had a much more personal decision to make, they had to take everything they knew about the situation and decide whether it was wiser to stay and fight or to leave. Half of them thought it smarter to leave, the other half, to stay.

Likewise, we should have seen more Slytherins staying behind because they made the personal decision that staying behind made more sense for them than leaving. I wouldn't have expected most, or even half, of them to stay. But, out, of the current Slytherins - none decided to stay? Not one? That's unbelievable. Not one Slytherin put their ambition to good use and realized that "war hero" can translate to a prosperous future? Really? Not one even decided to wait it out, see which side was winning, then join in the fray? Not one had an axe to grind against the pureblood fanatics or the people who think Slytherin is Voldie's pet house, something to prove? That simply does not make any sense.

It doesn't just bother me that no Slytherins stayed behind because it painted an entire group of children in a negative light but because it makes them all look like rather poor examples of cunning, ambition, resourcefulness, ruthless pragmatism and determination.

It would have been so easy to include just a few current Slytherins in the battle but apparently JKR wrote off the entire generation.

i think, overall, the book gets to be a bit dragging in the middle. all they did was stay from one forest to another and did small things that built up into something to help them defeat voldemort along the way. the ending saved it though. i REALLY loved the battle scenes and the epilogue. :)

hated the epilogue. It was too vague and didn't tell us anything. Now I have to wait for some encyclopedia to come out to tell me everything else that happens to the other charcters.

The traits that most clearly define a Slytherin: cunning, smart. NOT brvae. If they had a choice between staying in there and fighting or going to a safe place outside of the battle so that everyone else could do the dirty work, they'd definately choose the first. Notice how Draco, your average Slytherin, didn't use any direct fighting in his plot to get Dumbledore? He just fixed a cabinet, and the Death Eaters and Snape came and did all the work. So I don't think that DH's portrayal of their cowardice was incorrect. Snpae was just different; he only wanted to be in Slytherin because he would be able to join Voldemort then, not because he defined one. He was far too brave to be a natural Slytherin. Like Harry, he probably asked to be in the house he was in.

Well, that depends on what you feel constitutes bravery. Personally, I don't see anything Snape did as being all that brave. I think Snape showed that he was a true Slytherin all throughout because he carefully calculated the advantages and disadvantages for himself. He agreed to spy on Voldemort because he wanted revenge, but he knew there was very little risk involved in him doing so because he had a very secure safety net - Voldemort knew the entire time that Snape was giving information to Dumbledore - just as Dumbledore knew that Snape was giving information to Voldemort. In regards to Snape, Voldemort and Dumbledore incorporated the same plan - sticking Snape on the inside as a double agent. That's why there was so much ambiguity about Snape - it could have gone either way because he was following orders on both sides.

And Snape never had a defining moment - it was about revenge for him, plain and simple. There was never a moment where he questioned his choices or decided that Voldemort was wrong and should be stopped. As Jo said, Snape hated Harry to the very end and would have remained a loyal Death Eater to the end if Lily had not been involved. Motivation is significant in determining whether or not someone's actions are brave. Snape showed that he was a true Slytherin - it didn't matter if he was doing the right thing or not. The only thing that mattered to Snape was the advantage to himself - in this case, getting revenge for Lily's death.

Other than that, I agree with you. The traits of a true Slytherin were established early on. They are cunning, resourceful, ambitious, and generally believe that the ends justifies the means. Their actions will always be dependent upon whether or not there is any advantage for themselves. We see that with Draco in his attempts to kill Dumbledore without actually having to confront him. He knew that he would not have much chance of success in a direct confrontation. The necklace and the poison were passive attempts that he hoped would succeed so he wouldn't have to actually face Dumbledore. But he also knew that it might come down to that so he came up with a plan to have back up - fixing the cabinet so Death Eaters could get inside the castle. He was given an assignment, but he followed through in a way to put the advantage to himself.

We also see that with Narcissa. She didn't switch sides or decide that her beliefs were wrong. Her motive was selfish in that she wanted to make sure her son was safe. And, at that point, she had probably figured out that Voldemort was going to lose. The Malfoy family had been reduced to a laughing stock among the Death Eaters, but none of them actually changed their beliefs or made a definitive stand. They looked out for themselves first and foremost. They were true Slytherins.

And that stands for all the students in Slytherin. With any true Slytherin, it's not a choice between what is right and what is easy. For a true Slytherin, the choice involves what would be most advantageous to themselves. Voldemort is outside with all the Death Eaters and a huge army of supporters. They're in the castle with a few teachers and a significantly less number of students old enough to fight. The choice was to fight in a huge battle that would undoubtedly have heavy casualties where Voldemort had a clear advantage, turn Harry over to Voldemort and avoid any battle, or leave the school. Pansy made the first choice - Harry's right there, just give him to Voldemort and there would be no fighting. The rest of the Slytherins agreed with her because they saw that as the smart move - better to avoid fighting at all than risk their own lives. But the other houses didn't agree so that changed the choice because they would have to fight the other three houses to turn Harry over. And they would be at a disadvantage in numbers there as well. So they chose the only smart choice left available to them as they saw it - they left.

That's really what sets the Slytherins apart from everyone else. It takes true courage to stand up for your beliefs no matter what the odds are against you. No Slytherin was going to stand up for anything unless the odds were in their favor. That would go against their nature because their first priority was - and will always be - to do what is most advantageous for themselves. That doesn't make them all cowards or mean that all of them supported Voldemort. Some of them did support Voldemort and some of them were cowards, but that was not the core of the issue there. As far as the students in Slytherin were concerned, that was not their fight. Voldemort only wanted Harry and was willing to leave everyone else alone in exchange for Harry. They saw that as the smart move. A true Slytherin doesn't think in terms of what is brave and what is not - they think in terms of what is smart and what has the most benefit to themselves.

Just a reminder - you can have a more detailed discussion about Severus Snape, Narcissa and characteristics of Slytherin House in the appropriate Legilimency Studies threads.

i see the final duel as a bit of a disappointment, i think it could have been longer and slightly more dramatic. i was slightly disappointed that there was an epilogue, it seemed a bit too happy ending for me.

Over all, I loved DH, and did not feel let down or disappointed after I finished it. I thought it was an epic ending to one of the greatest fantasy series in history, ending with Harry sacrificing himself really brought the story full circle. However, I was disappointed with the lack of back story we recieved- We got a picture, a letter, and the Lily/Snape memories, but I felt the Lily/James plotline was unresolved- I would have loved some clear memories of one of my favorite couples together.

-LilyPod

The only thing that I was truly disappointed in was(forgive me, this is something stupid) is that the cover is depicting the final duel in the great hall. Now, lets say, if the cover depicted something different, such as the battle at hogwarts(what a great cover that would have been) or something else, I would not have been disappointed by the duel as it was a great duel really. However, when I saw the American cover, i was absolutely PUMPED to find out where it was taking place, and let me say how upset i am that Mary depicts the great hall like that(of course shes entitled to her own vision of it, but it is the ONE drawing of Mary's that annoys me - not because its not beautiful, because it is, but because its very misleading. This is mostly due to the fact that i don't think many people envisioned the great hall to be an ellipse with columns). And I don't mind that the final duel takes place in the great hall(it makes perfect sense for it to occur there) but, I was excited to see where this duel was taking place, and i thought it would be somewhere really exciting....yea i know, I'm nuts. Haha

Probably the only thing that really disappointed me was the role Ginny played in the book. I read a lot of fanfiction, and considering my favorite character is Ginny, most of the fics I read focus on Ginny and Harry. Perhaps this miscontrued my vision of Deathly Hallows, because I am a diehard Ginny fan, but I really, REALLY, had hoped that Ginny would ditch Hogwarts and go with the trio on their hunt for the horcruxes. I know it's pretty unreasonable, and what Rowling did makes the most sense, but I still just wish she had. Ginny hardly played any role in the book; you'd think that Harry's love would have a larger role. Not that she didn't do anything, don't get me wrong, I just wish she did more. That she was focused on more. Ginny was more of a minor/major character instead of a major character I wanted her to be. I suppose I just wish the Tenacious Trio had been the Quaint Quad.

i'm not disappointed because it thought dh was amazing but some of my friends had some great ideas. we all guessed that harry was a horcrux but one of my friends had this idea that to make harry suffer more before death he would kidnap ginny and hermione and make harry choose or they would both die. i thought that maybe it would truly be a better book if one of the trio had died, my bet was ron but most people i knew thought hermione. now i wouldn't change a thing, i think its a great book. alot of people aregoing to hate me for saying i used to wish one of the trio died?

alot of people aregoing to hate me for saying i used to wish one of the trio died?

ah, no. Each to their own, or how does that phrase go? I think everybody is entitled to their own opinion and preferences. :)

i'm not disappointed because it thought dh was amazing but some of my friends had some great ideas. we all guessed that harry was a horcrux but one of my friends had this idea that to make harry suffer more before death he would kidnap ginny and hermione and make harry choose or they would both die. i thought that maybe it would truly be a better book if one of the trio had died, my bet was ron but most people i knew thought hermione. now i wouldn't change a thing, i think its a great book. alot of people aregoing to hate me for saying i used to wish one of the trio died?

oo! i almost really like that idea
however, i don't like that he would just have chosen to save one and the other dies - talk about a depressing ending
for that to work he would have to pull a spiderman and save both or something
but then i feel rowling would have been bashed for stealing ideas from other stories (ie spiderman, batman forever etc etc)

and i do agree with you that the book may have been more effective had one of the trio died( i was imagining ron dying myself)

DH was overall a very good book. But I do find some things to be a bit disappointing, such as the epilogue and the death of certain characters. Also, the idea of Ron opening the Chamber of Secrets was kind of a disappointing plot device. And I was disappointed that Ginny didn't come with Harry to search for the horcruxes. I would have thought he'd have given her more credit in her ability to aid him despite the danger. Additionally, the final battle was a tad disappointing as I expected there to be more fanfare in the duel between Harry and Voldemort. But I did like the fact that Harry didn't actually do the direct killing of Voldemort- he impaled himself on his own curse, which is something I felt he totall deserved.

However, despite certain disappointments I might have had, this book really delivered in many other aspects. For instance, I loved the whole idea of the Deathly Hallows, and the fact that Harry, Ron and Hermione were on the run in hiding from the Death Eaters. I also really liked some of the scenes in this book, like the Bathilda scene (wonderfully creepy) and the Godric's Hollow monument (so touching). And then the whole King's Cross scene - I quite liked that chapter.

I think one more chapter after The Flaw in the plan would have made the epilogue look more like an epilogue and would have wrapped up a very well written book.

Personally, DH was a little disappointing as a case of not enough. What I mean was that it seemed like a lot of elements were crammed in and DH possibly could have been made into two books so that certain elements could have been expounded on. The Battle of Hogwarts might have been broadened with a little more reflection and even the epilogue lengthened to give a better sense of the changes in the main characters.

On reading the book a second time, I liked it better. The epilogue was still a disappointment because of its baffling Albus Severus deal. JKR explained what Harry was thinking later, but not how he arrived at those thoughts - so I feel like I have to make too many excuses for the adult Harry in order to continue to appreciate his character. But I do still dig the young Harry, he was kick. I also didn't like the whole unrequited love thing because it kind of tore apart my view of Snape as a strong individual. I still love JKR for allowing Remus to die and showing him young, happy and healthy in the afterworld - Sirius too - and rejoined with their friends Lily and James. I guess that redeemed the series for me because if I hadn't got that, I doubt I would even discuss the series at this point.

i liked it better the second time around too,and the htird one even better.
I am not dissapointed ,really .I liked it..
still after having reread it three times,i think there are chapters that would have been better,if done differently...

I also expected more horcurx hunt,more protection in each...not so much to do conccerning the locket,i did feel he foundhte other ones rather quickly...

overall ,i liked it,trying to be objective,i think it was a bit boring at some parts,i really expected it to be more intense...

from the chapter of godric hollow I started liking it better...

its a sad,book in many ways,but i think in general its a great book,and agreat ending to a great story...

all the books have certain things i didnt like,but in general i do love the series,and this was a great way of ending it...

Im not disappointed at all...

The only thing that I was truly disappointed in was(forgive me, this is something stupid) is that the cover is depicting the final duel in the great hall. Now, lets say, if the cover depicted something different, such as the battle at hogwarts(what a great cover that would have been) or something else, I would not have been disappointed by the duel as it was a great duel really. However, when I saw the American cover, i was absolutely PUMPED to find out where it was taking place, and let me say how upset i am that Mary depicts the great hall like that(of course shes entitled to her own vision of it, but it is the ONE drawing of Mary's that annoys me - not because its not beautiful, because it is, but because its very misleading. This is mostly due to the fact that i don't think many people envisioned the great hall to be an ellipse with columns). And I don't mind that the final duel takes place in the great hall(it makes perfect sense for it to occur there) but, I was excited to see where this duel was taking place, and i thought it would be somewhere really exciting....yea i know, I'm nuts. Haha

I completely agree! Before DH came out, I thought that the final battle was taking place beyond the veil. Especially because the DH cover has curtains on it.

Here is a thread where you can discuss the cover art: Deathly Hallows Cover Art (http://www.cosforums.com/showthread.php?t=108083&page=6&highlight=cover)

I think one more chapter after The Flaw in the plan would have made the epilogue look more like an epilogue and would have wrapped up a very well written book.

I agree with this. :tu:

Well, I read DH in practically 24 hours and was utterly enthralled by it: couldn't put it down! Emotionally engaging and thrilling. :tu:

When I reread it, I was much more aware of the various plot holes and inconsistencies that other readers in the fandom had documented. And they are quite considerable.

Deux ex machina
- goodness, how convenient of the Trio to Apparate into a spot in the woods where they can overhear Ted Tonks and the goblins talking about the sword of Gryffindor and other Useful Plot Points!
- most obliging of Harry to turn up at Bathilda Bagshot's cottage on Christmas Eve, where Nagini, stuffed in poor Bathilda's body, has been patiently waiting for him. ;)
- the dragon at Gringotts.

The other stories I wanted to hear, because I was getting bored with the Trio's Endless Camping Trip

- Severus's loneliest year as a double agent. Hated by all the Order. Hated by the entire school except his Slytherin kiddies. Knowing that his time is running out: that Harry must turn up soon, that Voldy will start getting a clue, that an attack by Nagini is surely inevitable at some point.
- The Hogwarts Resistance. What did Ginny, Luna and Neville think when Snape handed out a detention which was not cruel at all? Didn't they get some kind of a clue? Didn't Minerva get some kind of a clue?

Harry the Clueless
- So Voldemort puts a tracking Trace on anyone who speaks his name. The Trio work this out. Several chapters later, Harry forgets all about the Trace and speaks Voldy's name out loud. Harry Potter, Wizarding Britain's last, best hope. Merlin help them all. :lol: Thank goodness Hermione is with him. She's the brains on this expedition.

Albus 'this isn't love, the mess he's left me in' Dumbledore
- Someone pointed out to me that Rowling's stories are plot-driven, not character-driven. This explains why Albus withholds so much crucial information from Harry in Book 6. :rolleyes: It's because Rowling wants to racket up the tension in Book 7 ... what are the Hallows and how can Harry lay hold of them? Unfortunately, this has the effect of making Albus look completely incompetent. Because there is no way poor Harry could ever have worked this out without the superior intellect of Hermione. And it's a terrible situation for his mentor to have left him in. :td: He's the only one who can defeat Voldy, so Albus should have made sure that Harry had every last bit of info that would enable him to do so, rather than finding out through Luck, Hermione's Brain and Convenient Plot Devices. As it is, the last piece of the jigsaw is only possible because poor Severus gets it in the neck! :(

Whatever happened to House unity?
- OK, so all of Slytherin House are bad. Good to know. Ron Weasley is still going on about it in the Epilogue. So much for Kingsley Shacklebolt's tolerant new age. :rolleyes:

Well, all of that makes it sound like I dislike the book ... and I don't. :) It's definitely still my favourite of the series, simply because of the emotional punch it pulls, which is tremendous. :tu: But it's not the most well-crafted of the books, IMO.

However: I don't feel disappointed, ultimately. My disappointment with the series came earlier, with GoF, which I didn't think as good as PoA. I do really like OotP and HBP though. And Rowling is really a very good storyteller, and I love her characters.

So ... all is forgiven. :)

As I've said before, the real problem, in my mind, with DH was that there was too much story for the amount of book available. JKR pretty much kept to her guns about making each book be about one year in the life, but the preceding six books were buildups to the seventh, which basically had way too much information and storyline to cover for pages. The "holes", in my mind, occur just like holes in movies that are edited out for length.

DH could have been two books, one the first six months (covering the quest and the flashbacks) and one the last six months, covering the battle and its immediate aftermath...(OK, you can even keep the epilogue).

I thoroughly enjoyed DH, but at times, like Pearl says above, it seemed kind of plot contrived and rushed in order to move the characters along.

Agreed, Gator. After reading it for the first time, I had the impression (which deepened upon re-reading) that especially the final twenty-four hours tried to contain far too much, and took for that too little time as well as too much. The character development felt unsatisfying for me. For example - for six books, I've been following Harry struggling to live, and in just one chapter I saw him squaring with death. Didn't work for me. And that's just one example. On the other hand, that grand finale took far too much room in the book itself for my taste. As a finale to the series as such - no problem. As the end to one book - thoroughly out of balance.
I can understand the wish to keep up the tension, and/or suspense as long as possible - but having Dumbledore's character arc resolved in the same 150 pages when Severus has his great moment, AND Harry is squaring with his proverbial life-and-death question - and in between there are Dementors, snogging, action, Neville being a real hero... I prefer a decidedly slower pacing that gives room to its characters and plot lines.

Reading the book feels like watching the new 'The Golden Compass' movie - incredibly much information condensed to fit into the frame, and sacrificing depth for quantity. I wouldn't have minded to have Snape's true story be resolved at the beginning of the book, give Dumbledore's life and agenda room in the middle, and focus on Harry's character arc in the end. It wouldn't have yielded the same 'grand effect', but then, the 'grand effect' is often nothing more but a whole lot of noise and smoke. :)

The only thing disappointing about the book was that it ended.

I believe that she explained everything that needed to be explained, adequately.

I can understand that there were things people would like to have had mentioned, or been brought back to, such as the Veil and things of that nature. And I can see being disappointed by those types of things, but to infer disappointment with the book because you were really hoping to see Department of Mysteries again is just silly. You may have enjoyed the revisit, but is it truly disappointing? (The Veil and Department of Mysteries are just examples, you can translate this to anything of a similar nature)

Disappointment with Voldemort
Let me say for the record, that I wasn't disappointed with his behavior at all. For me, he was portrayed as a true villain. Arrogance and the inability to see past one's own nose are crucial to the character of a villain. Villains live in a world that is Black and White. Were he able to see shades of Gray, he would most likely never become a villain in the first place. Pointing out that he was stupid for not seeing the obvious that was apparent to others is a completely false statement. Firstly, things were not obvious to other characters. Mostly they were obvious to Dumbledore, and then slightly discernable by a few other key character who were in the know. Dumbledore's advantage over Voldemort was his ability to see Gray, as is so with the characters of all heroes. Most all heroes have a moment of darkness. Their ability to sway back and forward through these "character mood swings", if you will, is exactly why they are the hero. A true villain can not do so. So is the character of Voldemort. Unable to see the "obvious" not because he's ignorant, but because he's arrogant.

The arrogance of a villain is not something that you need to "buy" time and time again in accepting the reasons for his/her flaw(s), it is the apex of his/her flaw(s). In a villain's mind, they're always right, and they're the ones who know everything. The moment they think otherwise is usually at the time of their demise, whether it be by the hero, or by the coup of a worse villain who's arrogance overrides their own.

Voldemort was extremely smart, I don't think that even JKR would refute that. But his arrogance limited his knowledge to Black and White world.

I feel he died gloriously. Usually the villain always come back after dying for one last scare, in this case the tables were turned, and it was the Harry who came back from the dead, and boy was Voldemort scared about that turn of events.

Bravo Book Seven!

I loved it. Exept.... Ever since the 5th book I've wanted to see Harry, well read, Harry die. And I get my desire! and he.... Comes... Back *Darn*

The "dues-ex-machinas" weren't that bad.

Ted Tonks and the goblins were traveling around for weeks, in the same time-frame as the trio's camping trip. Odds are, they are eventually going to meet.

If I heard someone speaking Parseltongue, I would remember it, as it is such a rare event, and, after many tries, I would be able to say it convincingly.

The camping scenes were long and boring. But they were supposed to be. I would have been more upset if the book said "They continued camping for two months.", because that would have thrown the pacing off. (The pacing was bad enough as it is, everything crammed into the last 24 hours.

The Trace is not a contradiction. I'm going to create a thread about that.

The book was not predictable. If everyone is analyzing the first six books for two years, obviously the seventh is going to be predictable. When future readers can read the whole series start to finish, I doubt any of them will predict RAB, the horcrux locations, Harrycrux etc.

"The Muggle-Born Registration Commission", "The Prince's Tale", and "The Forest Again
" are my three favorite chapters in the whole series. That wasn't relevant at all, but I felt like throwing it in there.

Anyway, my third-favorite book in the series.

EDIT: Wow, first post in over a year.

Thinking it a bit more,I might say I was dissapointed in the way I actually got bored in some chapters,something that didnt happen to me with a potter book since goblet,( i did get bored a bit there before the quidditch cup thing)but it was only a bit,then here in hallows i did get bored for a few chapters...

I Like the book,i honestly do ,i had say that before.but I think as dissapointment shakes me,what really has me upset is that there is no book afterwards...when i closed a potter book for the first itme there was also this eagerness to get the next one,now there is nothing left,besides the scottish book,and that is a dissapointment for me.

If I heard someone speaking Parseltongue, I would remember it, as it is such a rare event, and, after many tries, I would be able to say it convincingly.
Only it would be hard to recognise it as a language in the first place, since it consists of hissing sounds and is not a human language. And Ron heard it only once and it did not seem to occupy his every waking minute afterwards. We know that Ron hasn't the best memory. The fact that apparating into the castle is impossible for humans constantly slips his mind, which is a running gag in the series. So I had a hard time believing that Ron of all people remembered the exact sequence of hissing sounds Harry made quite a bit earlier in the book. Not to mention the stress they were all under.

Only it would be hard to recognise it as a language in the first place, since it consists of hissing sounds and is not a human language.
Except that Ron knew that Harry is a Parseltongue, and that they were trying to open Slytherin's locket. It's pretty easy to deduce.

And Ron heard it only once and it did not seem to occupy his every waking minute afterwards.
Do you know exactly what Ron was thinking about from "The Silver Doe" on?

We know that Ron hasn't the best memory. The fact that apparating into the castle is impossible for humans constantly slips his mind, which is a running gag in the series.
He seems to easily remember things that are of interest to him i.e. Quiddich statistics. I have a poor short-term memory too, but I can easily remember things that I find interesting.

So I had a hard time believing that Ron of all people remembered the exact sequence of hissing sounds Harry made quite a bit earlier in the book. Not to mention the stress they were all under.

He did not have to remember the exact sequence. As he said, he had the basic idea of what the sound was and fiddled around with it until he got it right.

I can't deny it . . . I was a bit dissapointed in Deathly Hallows. It was way too rushed, like JKR just wanted to get it over with and move on with her life, which is probably true, and how can I blame her? But the last book, the grand finale, should have been the best, exceeding all of the other books. I liked DH, but I know it could've been better. And although I think the Deathly Hallows are a brilliant idea, I think they should've been introduced earlier in the series. But, of course, if JKR didn't come up with the Deathly Hallows until later then, again, I can't blame her. I was also dissapointed in the Final Duel between Harry and Voldemort (it just wasn't enough!). And it annoyed me that the diadem Horcrux was learned about, found, and destroyed all in one or two chapters. The epilogue, too, was a little dissapointing. You never found out about Harry, Ron, Hermione, or Ginny's careers and it doesn't say a thing about Fred or Luna. Don't get me wrong -- I DID like DH, but it seems like there are a lot of things that could be improved.

Only it would be hard to recognise it as a language in the first place, since it consists of hissing sounds and is not a human language. And Ron heard it only once and it did not seem to occupy his every waking minute afterwards. We know that Ron hasn't the best memory. The fact that apparating into the castle is impossible for humans constantly slips his mind, which is a running gag in the series. So I had a hard time believing that Ron of all people remembered the exact sequence of hissing sounds Harry made quite a bit earlier in the book. Not to mention the stress they were all under.

Actually, Ron heard Harry say "open" in Parseltongue twice - in COS and in DH. And both of those were circumstances of extreme duress - which would make the memory stand out. Psychologists have done studies on how people remember events connected with strong emotion more clearly.

In COS, it was very intense - they were worried about Ginny, they were afraid, and they were angry because of Lockhart. It was Ron who realized that Parseltongue was the key to open the chamber - and he knew what Harry was saying because the first attempt came out in English. Because it was an intense situation connected to strong emotion, that would be a very clear memory for Ron.

In DH, it was even more intense because Ron had a good idea of what the locket was going to show and he was afraid. He knew what Harry was saying because Harry had told him he was going to ask the locket to open in Parseltongue. And he probably recognized the sounds as what Harry had done when they opened the chamber.

As for Ron's thoughts - we have no idea what Ron was thinking unless he talked to Harry about it. We only had access to Harry's thoughts and perceptions. But I don't believe Ron just forgot about what happened with the locket immediately after it was over. I'd say that it's more likely that he thought about that quite a bit - probably even had a few nightmares about it.

Ron actually had a very good memory - for things that were important and/or interesting to him. For example, it was Ron who told Harry about Dragon breeding being made illegal in PS/SS and he remembered where and when that was done. It was something interesting to him and he remembered it. It really came down to how much attention he was paying - and he was paying close attention both times Harry said "open" in Parseltongue in front of him because the circumstances were so intense.

And he didn't remember it exactly right - it took him a few tries to make the right sounds for the word "open" when he opened the chamber. He remembered enough to allow him to be able to do it. Anyone who had heard it before could have done the same thing. Ron was simply the only person who had heard Harry say "open" - and knew Harry was saying "open" when he heard it. So he was the only person - apart from Harry - who could have attempted to open the chamber. Harry couldn't do it because he had to look for the tiara. Ron was the only other viable choice and that saved time because Harry couldn't be everywhere at once. And having Harry stop and run down to the chamber would have interrupted the narrative and disrupted the flow of the story.

Nope, I wasn't disappointed at all. It's better than I ever could have imagined. Like I have said in various threads, It's a work of a genius. The way she exposes Dumbledores mistakes is remarkable. It's genius to show how even one of the greatest wizards of all time has made some big mistakes. You learn a lot from your mistakes.

I won't consider Deathly Hallows to be a disappointment. Although many final books of a series tend to be sort of a let down, Deathly Hallows explains a lot of stuff and also reveals stuff that we won't have guessed. The only disappointing feeling will be that the series is over. ITS OVER! ARGH! Voldy should have protected his Horcruxes better so we can have an 8th book. But I think JKR made it 7 books because 7 is the magical number or something.

DH isn't too rushed. Its a bad idea to extend the story into 2 books or over elaborate because it ruins the suspense building up to the finale. If the book needs to have additional details, I would rather have a chapter where Harry finds one of those memory things left behind by James and/or Lily.

I bought the book in the Summer and I haven't had the time to read it until just last week. School's going to start soon in a couple of days and right now I'm suffering from DH hangover/depression or whatever its called. I read the book twice actually and I since I read books only during the Winter Break (sadly), I'm look forward to reading the entire series all over again come December.

On reading the book a second time, I liked it better. The epilogue was still a disappointment because of its baffling Albus Severus deal. JKR explained what Harry was thinking later, but not how he arrived at those thoughts - so I feel like I have to make too many excuses for the adult Harry in order to continue to appreciate his character. But I do still dig the young Harry, he was kick. I also didn't like the whole unrequited love thing because it kind of tore apart my view of Snape as a strong individual. I still love JKR for allowing Remus to die and showing him young, happy and healthy in the afterworld - Sirius too - and rejoined with their friends Lily and James. I guess that redeemed the series for me because if I hadn't got that, I doubt I would even discuss the series at this point.

I agree. There is still some disappointment though. I still don't like the contradictions with the Trace and the changes made to the Fidelius Charm. I still hate the entire subplot involving Snape - it was just so poorly written, contrived, and unbelievable. And I still hate the fact that Dumbledore and Snape did not actually do anything to help Harry along the way. Harry succeeded because of a series of events that occurred due to blind luck and - for me - that makes Dumbledore look really bad because he didn't prepare Harry for what needed to be done at all. And there are little things - like renaming the Deluminator. I do think that's a much better name than "Put-Outer", but it's an odd change and it should have been explained. It would have been pretty simple to have someone say "I thought that was a Put-Outer" and be told that Dumbledore decided to give his invention a better name.

And the whole search for Horcruxes bit just dragged and got really boring. I was surprised by that. I figured the Horcruxes would be a small part of the book overall and she spent a lot more time on that than she should have. It was boring and it dragged a lot. They should have found both the locket and the cup early on and been focused on figuring out what the unknown Horcrux was instead of endless chapters of camping with no progress being made because Dumbledore had not given them the information they needed. That was disappointing.

But there are things I loved about the book as well. It's not my favorite, but I still think it was pretty good overall.

And the whole search for Horcruxes bit just dragged and got really boring. I was surprised by that. I figured the Horcruxes would be a small part of the book overall and she spent a lot more time on that than she should have. It was boring and it dragged a lot. They should have found both the locket and the cup early on and been focused on figuring out what the unknown Horcrux was instead of endless chapters of camping with no progress being made because Dumbledore had not given them the information they needed. That was disappointing.

But there are things I loved about the book as well. It's not my favorite, but I still think it was pretty good overall.

I agree with you. The search for the Horcruxes just seemed to go on and on without getting anywhere until they destroyed the locket. JKR spent a really long time focusing on the locket Horcux alone. First, they had to spend a lot of time figuring out where it was. Then, they had to figure out a way to get it. Then they had to actually GET it. Then, they had to figure out how to destroy it. Then they had to find what to destroy it with. Then they had to actually DESTROY it. The locket part just took a long time to get over with.

And then, the next Horcruxes just seemed to be gone in no time at all. I mean, the diadem was found and destroyed in just one chapter! I really didn't like that.

I really and truly did like the book a lot, but it was a lot different than I expected. The whole book felt like it was just squeezing in answers to all of the questions that everyone had. But I really did like it! I just didn't like it as much as the some of the other books. :)

Reminder. No Jo bashing!

"Poorly written" and "boring" are very subjective opinions and are not to be presented as general truths.

Kindly reread the opening post of this thread before posting.

I wouldn't have minded the amount of time the search for the locket took. Quite the opposite, actually. The failure in HBP - the long head-scratching 'where is it?', how they prepared their coup and all that. There was a certain realism to it. For if finding the Horcruxes was easy, Dumbledore could have done it years ago. What bothered me was the comparably little amount of time spent on finding the others.

I might not be the only one who expected DH to be really long. My reason to assume that was, exactly, the Horcrux hunt, and to see that HBP, the book that introduced the concept, spent so much time both introducing them and then going for the locket. I had believed that the cave adventure would exemplify how difficult it'd be to get to a Horcrux and destroy it - and how many disapointments and heavy losses would come with it. And bear in mind that it took Dumbledore years to figure out the location of this one in the first place.

Of course, DH would have been about 2000 pages long if the cup, real locket, tiara and Nagini had taken up just as much thinking, careful preparation and execution. Wouldn't have been that pleasurable to read, either, I guess. And that leads to my major problem. I'm not fond of the Hallows concept, mainly because it (the ultimate way to win - nay, trick ;) - Voldemort into beating himself) seemed to come out of nothing in the very last installation. I said so before, but I'm a great advocate for foreshadowing. Still, I might have been much less adverse to the concept if it hadn't clashed so heavily with all the other things in this one book. DH was too heavy on the props for my liking. There was an incredible amount of items to keep track of. All the Horcruxes (am I the only one who kept counting with my fingers while reading the book? 'Hold on, how many more to go? Just HOW many have they got now?'), the Hallows, the Deluminator, the book, the Snitch, the real sword, the fake sword, all the different wands... Get me right, I liked the ideas - just not all at once, in so little amount of time. I always say that I don't like the balance and pacing of DH, but by now I think it's not so much a matter of this book in itself - or maybe it is, depends on how you look at it.

All the revelations were put into that one book, and while I understand the wish to keep up the tension as long as possible, I believe it would have been favourable to focus on one, two, three perhaps, questions to be resolved in DH, and evenly distribute the others on the former books. Obviously, that would change the entire outline of Order, Prince, why, Goblet even, as far as I am concerned. All books that I immensely enjoyed just the way the are.

To illustrate what I mean - after a nicely paced HBP dealing with Voldemort's background story along the present day's plot, I read the resolution of Dumbledore's background crammed in between a heist, and an impending battle. Snape's story takes place right during the battle. And in between, Harry hears that he is supposed to die - and marches to his own death in the very next chapter - and yet another chapter later, he (and we) hear that he might get another chance to live yet. That was far too quick for me. As I said - I don't see how that could have been done much differently in the course of this one book - the only possibility I see is to have started much earlier, to move a lot of crucial matters from DH, HBP even, one or two books earlier, and have them resolve more slowly in the course of these books. If the concept of the Horcruxes - just as an example - had started in Order already, there would have been two books still to deal with them, and the difficult and straining hunt would have been given justice. Breaking into Gringotts, for example, could have been just as interesting, just as difficult, if it had not happened when Voldemort had already taken absolute power. That I am unhappy with the tiara in pretty much every aspect, I mentioned often enough. At university, we used to call that the Shakespeare problem - because Shakespeare in his comedies often had a fifth act that didn't 'feel right' when reading it - after carefully building up the plot, the tension, etc - the fifth act would resolve everything 'just like that'. Mind you, the man was a genius, don't throw stones at me, please. It's probably the difference between reading and watching. Shakespeare foremost wrote for an audience in the theatre. Only much later, his works were put into print. And watching gives you a different feeling than reading does.

And that is, ultimately, how Hallows felt to me. It felt like a film to me, for long passages of time. The loving detail put into action scenes like the air raid, the crashing tower of Xeno Lovegood, all that. I liked that, don't mistake me, but I thought that if I put the action elements into relation to the amount of time given to the matters at the heart of the story, AND most crucially, the secondary central characters, it was either too much on the one side, or too little on the other. As for the primary character, it was even more painful for me to read - Harry - little Harry that we've seen growing up for so long - whom I've been following through the depths of puberty, fretting ages about Cho Chang, or Quidditch, squares with the fact that he is supposed to die in one chapter. In the end, I read more about Quidditch, as far as page-space in the series goes, than about THE admirable decision that makes Harry so special. Too quick, too 'easy' for my liking. Obviously, others may feel differently.

I wouldn't have minded the amount of time the search for the locket took. Quite the opposite, actually. The failure in HBP - the long head-scratching 'where is it?', how they prepared their coup and all that. There was a certain realism to it. For if finding the Horcruxes was easy, Dumbledore could have done it years ago. What bothered me was the comparably little amount of time spent on finding the others.

I might not be the only one who expected DH to be really long. My reason to assume that was, exactly, the Horcrux hunt, and to see that HBP, the book that introduced the concept, spent so much time both introducing them and then going for the locket. I had believed that the cave adventure would exemplify how difficult it'd be to get to a Horcrux and destroy it - and how many disapointments and heavy losses would come with it. And bear in mind that it took Dumbledore years to figure out the location of this one in the first place.

Actually, Dumbledore spent those years gathering memories about Voldemort - not searching for Horcruxes. He was actively searching for Horcruxes from approximately the end of OOTP until they found the cave. That was my impression of it because he told Harry how difficult it had been to get those memories and how long it had taken him.

And that was the point of showing all of that to Harry - everything he needed to know to figure out where the Horcruxes were was right there. The only one that should have been difficult was the cup because they had no way of figuring out that Voldemort would have given that one to Bellatrix to hide until they were captured. But, all in all, the story would have flowed better if they had gotten the locket and the cup before Christmas. All those months of endless camping with no progress whatsoever really dragged out and did not flow well at all. I had to force myself not to skim over those parts. But I never expected DH to be really long. That was the mistake Jo made with OOTP and HBP demonstrated how much she had learned from that mistake because it was much cleaner and more concise. I figured DH would follow that as well - but the camping chapters pushed it a bit. She could have cut a lot of that and the story would have flowed better.

Of course, DH would have been about 2000 pages long if the cup, real locket, tiara and Nagini had taken up just as much thinking, careful preparation and execution. Wouldn't have been that pleasurable to read, either, I guess. And that leads to my major problem. I'm not fond of the Hallows concept, mainly because it (the ultimate way to win - nay, trick ;) - Voldemort into beating himself) seemed to come out of nothing in the very last installation. I said so before, but I'm a great advocate for foreshadowing. Still, I might have been much less adverse to the concept if it hadn't clashed so heavily with all the other things in this one book. DH was too heavy on the props for my liking. There was an incredible amount of items to keep track of. All the Horcruxes (am I the only one who kept counting with my fingers while reading the book? 'Hold on, how many more to go? Just HOW many have they got now?'), the Hallows, the Deluminator, the book, the Snitch, the real sword, the fake sword, all the different wands... Get me right, I liked the ideas - just not all at once, in so little amount of time. I always say that I don't like the balance and pacing of DH, but by now I think it's not so much a matter of this book in itself - or maybe it is, depends on how you look at it.

The pacing is a big problem as well. It's not consistent really. Parts of it just seem to drag on forever and other parts of it are rushed with too much going on all at once. That disrupted the flow of the narrative for me.

Alastor - it was not my intention to bash Jo. However, this is a thread to discuss whether or not we were disappointed and why so everything in this thread is going to be subjective and personal opinion. I was disappointed because - in my opinion - parts of DH were poorly written and parts of it dragged out and were boring. Other parts were brilliant and very well written. I still have respect for Jo as a writer even though parts of DH disappointed me. Nobody is perfect.

And I still hate the fact that Dumbledore and Snape did not actually do anything to help Harry along the way. Harry succeeded because of a series of events that occurred due to blind luck and - for me - that makes Dumbledore look really bad because he didn't prepare Harry for what needed to be done at all.

It's unlikely that you and I will agree about Snape :D as it was clear to me that Jo had plotted out the Prince's Tale from the very outset of her long saga, :cool:, and it probably felt very satisfying her to fire the Snape/Lily gun at long last :D but I do agree with your points about Dumbledore.

A friend pointed out to me that because the HP books are very much plot-driven, rather than character-driven (although Jo creates wonderful characters), she saved the revelation about the Hallows until the final book, in order to produce and build up tension. The unfortunate spin-off of this, IMO, is that it doesn't reflect well on Albus ... he is raising Harry to defeat Voldemort, and therefore this boy needs all the information, all the help and all the tools at Albus's disposal in order to do so! And he doesn't get them. :grumble: Not in a coherent form that makes sense and is logical. It makes no sense that Albus would not have told Harry, in year 6, about the Horcruxes but not the Hallows ... did he expect Harry to work it all out just like, well, magic? :whistle: It is indeed blind luck, a series of happy accidents and Hermione's intellect (!) that puts Harry on the right trail ... it has nothing to do with Albus's non-existent guidance on the matter of the Hallows.

Albus's will also makes no sense. What, he knew that Ron would at some point desert Harry and Hermione and need a Deluminator? Did Albus suddenly develop the gift of prophecy, before he died?

Yet, despite the flaws I see in the plotting of DH, it is my favourite, simply because of chapters like The Silver Doe (:love:) and genuinely chilling episodes like Malfoy Manor.

I loved Harry in DH. :tu:

And most of all I love the terrific emotional punch of the last 100 pages or so ... from the moment the Trio Apparate into Hogsmeade and set the Death Eaters' wards off, to their encounter with Aberforth (he rocks!), to the Battle of Hogwarts (thrilling and moving), the Prince's Tale - :upset: - , Harry's courageous walk through the Forest and meeting his dead parents - :upset: - the clever (if convoluted :D) twist of his final confrontation with Tom ...

I loved it. :tu:

I loved Harry in DH. :tu:

And most of all I love the terrific emotional punch of the last 100 pages or so ... from the moment the Trio Apparate into Hogsmeade and set the Death Eaters' wards off, to their encounter with Aberforth (he rocks!), to the Battle of Hogwarts (thrilling and moving), the Prince's Tale - :upset: - , Harry's courageous walk through the Forest and meeting his dead parents - :upset: - the clever (if convoluted :D) twist of his final confrontation with Tom ...

I loved it. :tu: I agree with most of your post, but especially this last part. I absolutely loved Harry in this book. And the last part of the book, from Hogsmeade on, is my favorite section. I have reread that many times, especially since some of the plot elements are a little confusing. :hmm: