Just finished HP7

[Komag]

I dunno if anyone wants any spoilers...

 

non-spoiler:

It's a good easy read, some great revelations and action, not too dark or depressing. I recommend it

 

spoilers:

if you want 'em, I'll type 'em...

 

and please, no haters you can say the books/movies suck, but just don't be a butthole about it

[Unstoppable]

No spoilers thank you.

[Nyarlathotep]

Dammit, I haven't even gotten the book yet! Although, I would have trouble getting around to reading it if I did as I'm having so much damn fun in Dark Messiah.

 

 

 

No spoilerz, plz. Kthxbai!

[demagogue]

The seventh and last book in the series, Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, is scheduled to be released on 21 July 2007.[4]

 

There was also a review in the New York Times today, and it gushed on and on about how epic it was, how it had a bang-up end worthy of the wait that definitively ended things, and at the same time how it could still stay relevant to young suburban kids ... keeping the epic and mundane-but-real balanced all the way through.

 

I've read a few murmurs on the plot from that review ...

Voldemort & co infiltrate the Ministry of Magic and spark a kind of civil war, and it comes down to a final show-down. Something about a connection to the past of Dumbledor and Snape, and typical of her way of thinking ... they weren't always what they seem now except that they chose the life-path the ended up on.

(I don't know myself, just from the article, but I'll tag it anyway)

 

My sneaky prediction was that Dumbledor actually *was* an older Harry, and that would bring the book full-circle, but somebody shot that idea down as wrong. I don't want spoilers, though; I'll read it for myself ... someday. I'm happy to hear that it'll be worth it ... that's good news to hear. It's nice when a series can come to a satisfying end (although for the record, I also liked the Sopranos end as, to me, an inspired non-ending; as long as it's done with some thought). Anyway, I'll be happy to read it, and it's enough to know it gets your enthusiastic thumbs up.

 

Speaking of Sopranos, one thing its final season does apparently share with HP7, though, is

a not-insignificant body count.

 

Edited July 20, 2007 by demagogue

[sparhawk]

How did you get the book already? The oonly spoiler I want: How many pages? I hope it's 6000 pages so it will take some time to finish it. After all, it's the last in the series. At least it's supposed to.

[Dram]

The last one I read was no.4 - goblet of fire. Are the next 3 as good or better? If so then I should definitely get it.

[Komag]

I don't know about the last books being better than the earlier ones. They are different, much more serious. I liked the innocent charm of the early books, really took me back to being 10/11/12 years old, pulling pranks at scout camp and school, etc. The later books are not nearly so charming, but still fun.

 

Book 7 in America is 759 pages. I know it's different in UK, don't know about elsewhere.

 

And yeah, Rowling pretty much pulls out all the stops in this one in the latter half, finishing up the whole series on a strong point

[Dram]

I don't know about the last books being better than the earlier ones. They are different, much more serious. I liked the innocent charm of the early books, really took me back to being 10/11/12 years old, pulling pranks at scout camp and school, etc. The later books are not nearly so charming, but still fun.

 

Book 7 in America is 759 pages. I know it's different in UK, don't know about elsewhere.

 

And yeah, Rowling pretty much pulls out all the stops in this one in the latter half, finishing up the whole series on a strong point

 

Hmm, still, the story had me engrossed in it and I could not stop reading, so I may as well get the other 3 and see how it ends

[sparhawk]

Yeah, I noticed that too. Up to volume 4 the book was definitely a childrens book, but with the goblet of fire it started to change. The order of the poenix, was defnitely much more serious and grown up, and I guess the same is true for the last volume as well.

[Redface]

Never read the books and probably never will, but the movies were okay.

[Capela]

My sister that is 10 years old than me(for does who know my age know what this mean) allready read the other books from the serie and it seem she realy like it, i saw the movies and its funny to see, the elders ones think the books are a good reading for me?, after all i like fantasy.

[jdude]

I've heard the books are really good, and that the movies stink haha I think I may give the books a try, I'd like to know how it ends so feel free to pm me any spoilers

[Crispy]

Never read the books and probably never will, but the movies were okay.

Duuuude. The books are so much better than the movies.

 

I just finished reading #7 earlier today. No spoilers from me if I can help it (I had #6 spoiled so I know what it's like - I was not pleased), but I will say that it's probably the best one yet. I mean... wow. JKR is a brilliant writer. She had me seriously concerned in the latter part of the book about

Ginny's safety - just a hunch I had. I really couldn't see Ginny staying safely out of harm's way, and I was sure that was going to lead her into trouble.

(<--- spoiler for book #7)

 

I prefer the later books, to be honest. They do get darker, yes, but I find that much more interesting. The first book is my least favourite, closely followed by the second. The rest of them are all great, though I thought #3 was a bit better than #4 - I loved

the time travel sequence.

(<--- spoiler for book #3, but if you care and you haven't read it yet then WTF are you doing?)

 

jdude - I strongly recommend you avoid spoilers where you can... the experience is so much better that way.

[Komag]

Too late, he asked and I gave away everything! I myself hate spoilers, but some people really do like them and it would not be better for them not to have them.

[Nyarlathotep]

I read the book yesterday. To be honest, I'm very mixed about my reactions, but I can't express any of them without serious spoilers (in one case, the single biggest spoiler of the book!). Still, much better than some of the earlier ones.

[Crispy]

Feel free to PM me your reactions, Nyar... I'm interested that you didn't like some of it.

 

Or you could use

spoiler

tags, with appropriate and visible warnings.

[Nyarlathotep]

Well, alright.

 

My first problem is no fault of J.K.'s, but I saw The Order of the Phoenix last week. I kept hearing all the actors' voices in the book! It started to drive me nuts towards the end!

 

Most of my real issues, however, come from

how J.K. handled death in the book

. Let's take a brief excerpt of the list (not just gripes, some highlights as well ), shall we? Achtung! Massive spoilerage ahead, highlight at your own risk:

• Hedwig dying completely shocked me. Honestly, that was actually a stroke of genius on J.K.'s part. It never even occurred to me that she would kick the bucket!
   
  
• I can easily accept most of the deaths. Hedwig made for great shock value, Mad-Eye had to be gotten out of the way to make three-quarters of the book work, Fred (although admittedly gratuitous) helped sell home the point that people were dying left and right (I had to read it twice it to sink in), but Remus and Tonks were just a little too much. I could have accepted one, or the other, but not both. Think of their child, J.K.! At least she didn't kill Tonks while she was still preggers.
   
  
• I hate to admit it, but I cried a little when Harry was walking to his death.
   
  
• Biggest spoiler ever:
  Harry's "resurrection" pissed me off. Admittedly, she'd been leading up to it for a long while, but the one character whose death was inevitable got a goddamn Get-Out-of-Jail-Free Card with the Deathly Hallows!
   
  
• Worse than that, is how J.K. keeps emphasizing throughout the second half how the person who collects all three Hallows becomes the "Master of Death," only for it to turn out to be the power to give Voldemort
  a limp dick wand!
  C'mon, at least she could have given the "Master of Death" the ability to bring back the recently dead, or something!
   
  
• Also, "Deathly Hallows" just sounds stupid. The idea's cool, if not entirely original, but "Deathly Hallows?" I suppose it's supposed to sound scary, but honestly, it just sounds childish!
   
  

I've unfortunately forgotten a lot of my gripes with the book, already. What I've listed should do for now.

 

 

 

Edit: whoops! Missed the "More Options" button!

[Crispy]

@Hedwig: Yeah, that was sad. :-( Doesn't make it a bad book though; if more emotion is evoked in book A compared to some other book B, then that's because book A is better written than book B IMO.

[Nyarlathotep]

I've edited my post, mate. I know what you were talking about, but nobody else will!

[Crispy]

Bleh. Revisionist.

 

Responses to your edit (all MAJOR spoilers, obviously):

 

 

Fred's death hasn't really sunk in for me at all. Possibly because I never really differentiated him from George, and George is still around... And on the subject of Remus and Tonks, I think that's the point - you're not meant to be able to accept them! It's supposed to be traumatic. See my comment about emotion above. If there weren't some seriously sad deaths, it would be way too Happily Ever After for my liking. It still is a bit like that even despite the deaths. As much as I would have hated to see Ginny (for example) die, I think it would have been a more believable story if she had.

 

 

 

@"Deathly Hallows" - that's not the name of the artefacts, just the book. Blame the publisher if you will... personally I think Hallows is a pretty good name for the artefacts.

 

 

Reply to biggest spoiler ever, which itself contains several of the biggest spoilers ever (seriously, HUGE HUGE spoilers here):

I think you've got the wrong end of the (Death)stick there... Which is easy to do; I actually went back and re-read the ending to get it all clear in my mind. The way I read it, the Hallows didn't have anything to do with Harry's "resurrection"; he was never actually dead. What happened was that because Voldemort's blood is Harry's blood, and thus contains the power of Lily's sacrifice, Harry can't die as long as Voldemort is alive. Instead, he just got knocked out, as did Voldemort (hence the Death Eater's concern in the scene when Harry awakes). Basically, just like Harry is (was) Voldemort's horcrux, Voldemort is Harry's "horcrux"; with the advantage that Harry didn't actually have to split his soul to get that effect, just share his charmed blood. As Dumbledore says, "He took your blood and rebuilt his living body with it! Your blood in his veins, Harry, Lily's protection inside both of you! He tethered you to life while he lives!"

 

 

@limpness:

That's not a "Master of Death ability" (if indeed there is any such thing - IMO it's not clear that there is any particular special advantage to having all the Hallows, except that you have them all). It's just a logical consequence of wandlore. I thought that was made pretty clear...

 

 

 

I think the story would be significantly weakened if the Master of Death was able to resurrect people (properly, without the side-effects of the resurrection stone); with death being (rightly) treated as a serious subject, it wouldn't do to suddenly turn around and trivialise it like that.

 

[Nyarlathotep]

Bleh. Revisionist.

I can't help it, especially when I hit the wrong button!

 

Fred's death hasn't really sunk in for me at all. Possibly because I never really differentiated him from George, and George is still around... And on the subject of Remus and Tonks, I think that's the point - you're not meant to be able to accept them! It's supposed to be traumatic. See my comment about emotion above. If there weren't some seriously sad deaths, it would be way too Happily Ever After for my liking. It still is a bit like that even despite the deaths. As much as I would have hated to see Ginny (for example) die, I think it would have been a more believable story if she had.

 

I don't mind the fact that they were killed off; I mind that poor child. What happens to baby Tonks? Now he's an orphan, with no mention of him in relation to his godfather, Harry, not even in the fucking epilogue!

 

 

@"Deathly Hallows" - that's not the name of the artefacts, just the book. Blame the publisher if you will... personally I think Hallows is a pretty good name for the artefacts.

I'm completely the reverse. I'm fine with the title being "Deathly Hallows", but

the artifacts themselves? Fuck no

!

 

Reply to biggest spoiler ever, which itself contains several of the biggest spoilers ever (seriously, HUGE HUGE spoilers here):

I think you've got the wrong end of the (Death)stick there... Which is easy to do; I actually went back and re-read the ending to get it all clear in my mind. The way I read it, the Hallows didn't have anything to do with Harry's "resurrection"; he was never actually dead. What happened was that because Voldemort's blood is Harry's blood, and thus contains the power of Lily's sacrifice, Harry can't die as long as Voldemort is alive. Instead, he just got knocked out, as did Voldemort (hence the Death Eater's concern in the scene when Harry awakes). Basically, just like Harry is (was) Voldemort's horcrux, Voldemort is Harry's "horcrux"; with the advantage that Harry didn't actually have to split his soul to get that effect, just share his charmed blood. As Dumbledore says, "He took your blood and rebuilt his living body with it! Your blood in his veins, Harry, Lily's protection inside both of you! He tethered you to life while he lives!"

 

Okay, then why did it work the second time? Yeah, I get he was still alive, that it wasn't truly a resurrection, but why should Harry be able to kill Voldemort the second time when it didn't work the first time around? The horcruxes didn't keep Voldemort alive; they allowed him to resurrect himself. If the hallows had absolutely nothing to do with Harry's survival, then what the fuck did they do at all? Well, besides giving Voldemort impotency. By you reckoning, J.K. basically says that neither Voldemort nor Harry can kill each other, yet neither can survive while the other lives.

Contradiction, anyone?

 

 

Oh by the way, in case you didn't figure it out, the baby in the train station was Voldemort. I thought that was an interesting touch J.K. added to that whole conversation.

 

 

@limpness:

That's not a "Master of Death ability" (if indeed there is any such thing - IMO it's not clear that there is any particular special advantage to having all the Hallows, except that you have them all). It's just a logical consequence of wandlore. I thought that was made pretty clear...

 

It was made pretty clear that it wasn't; it's just that that's the impression that was given. The problem is that even Dumbledore himself makes out the artifacts to be somehow all-powerful. Then, it turns out to be nothing at all?

Hasn't that bitch ever heard of a Chekhov's Gun? :shakes fist:

 

I think the story would be significantly weakened if the Master of Death was able to resurrect people (properly, without the side-effects of the resurrection stone); with death being (rightly) treated as a serious subject, it wouldn't do to suddenly turn around and trivialise it like that.

 

Well, like I said, the recently dead only. Besides, it was only a suggestion. It just needed to be something, not just nothing--not just Voldemort's fucking limp dick.

 

 

Edit: this post has more blacked-out lines than your average NSA memo!

[Crispy]

Okay, then why did it work the second time? [...] why should Harry be able to kill Voldemort the second time when it didn't work the first time around?

 

I'm not sure what you mean. Which "first time" are we talking about here?

 

If you mean the bit in the Forbidden Forest, Voldemort wasn't the one being hit with Avada Kedavra. He was only affected at all because Harry was affected, and when the Lily's protection was activated, it was activated in both of them, putting V into contact with Lily's love, which he can't handle (or something like that).

 

V. was vulnerable in the confrontation in the Great Hall because he had no more horcruxes. (The soul fragment making Harry a horcrux was blasted out of him in the Forest confrontation.)

 

 

The horcruxes didn't keep Voldemort alive; they allowed him to resurrect himself.

 

Okay, so the blood link isn't exactly like a horcrux.

 

 

If the hallows had absolutely nothing to do with Harry's survival, then what the fuck did they do at all?

 

Nothing. That's the point. I mean, what's the cloak going to do that it hasn't already done? How does a wand help Harry when he doesn't have it in his hand? And the stone has to be pretty useless for resurrecting people, since otherwise death becomes trivial, and that's pretty lame. It does help Harry pass the Dementors so it is good for something.

 

The Hallows are a "lure for fools", as Dumbledore puts it. That's why we haven't seen more of them. The legend surrounding them exaggerates their capabilities, and anyone seeking the Hallows for personal gain is bound to be disappointed. That's much more interesting and less cliche than your typical magical artefact.

 

 

By you reckoning, J.K. basically says that neither Voldemort nor Harry can kill each other, yet neither can survive while the other lives.

Contradiction, anyone?

That's not what I reckoned at all.

The "neither can live" shtick is a bit of prophecy mumbo-jumbo anyway. We established in book 6 that the prophecy only means anything because Voldemort thinks it does.

 

It's interesting to note that neither Harry nor V. actually kill each other! Voldemort kills himself with his own Avada Kedavra, which was overpowered by Harry's Expelliarmus because the Elder Wand allowed its master, Harry, to prevail.

 

 

Oh by the way, in case you didn't figure it out, the baby in the train station was Voldemort. I thought that was an interesting touch J.K. added to that whole conversation.

Yeah, that was kinda obvious.

Though depending on interpretation, it may instead have been the representation of a fragment of V's soul.

 

 

The problem is that even Dumbledore himself makes out the artifacts to be somehow all-powerful. Then, it turns out to be nothing at all?

Hasn't that bitch ever heard of a Chekhov's Gun? :shakes fist:

 

To be fair, all of them are important to the plot for some reason (even the stone - in its incarnation as the ring it tempts Dumbledore which ultimately, albeit indirectly, causes his death), so the Chekhov's Gun principle is upheld. (In a way, the invisibility cloak is actually a reverse Chekhov's Gun - it's used well before it's properly introduced!) And the fact that they're not all-powerful prevents them collectively turning into a Deus Ex Machina.

 

I like the fact that they're not nearly as useful as they're made to sound. See "lure for fools" above.

 

 

Edit: this post has more blacked-out lines than your average NSA memo!

But the contents are more sensitive.

[Nyarlathotep]

Heh. I guess I must have missed the

"lure for fools"

line, or missed its significance, at least. I guess I'll have to reread the ending.

 

But the contents are more sensitive.

That's what Bush thinks, at least when it comes to his favorite whipping boys, the CIA.

[Crispy]

I guess I'll have to reread the ending.

Definitely a good idea. I had to!

 

By the way, I just remembered:

Lupin's son is mentioned in the epilogue. His name is Teddy Lupin, and James Potter (junior) catches him "snogging Victoire". Harry mentions that "he already comes around for dinner about four times a week" and suggests inviting him to live with them. So don't worry, he's not being neglected.

 

I don't know for sure, but I imagine that Teddy Lupin usually lives with Tonks's parents, since that's who Tonks left them with before the battle.

 

[Komag]

I think the mutant baby is only the portion of Voldemort that was in Harry, not the whole Voldemort. It is now separated from Harry and is dying off as Harry and D speak.