Harry Potter (the series) comes to a close (beware of spoilers)

[icfireball]

I finished reading Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows.

It's sad to see the series come to an end. The series was imaginative, adventurous, intriguing, fun, powerful, captivating, yet serious.

The epilogue was lacking though in my opinion. What happened to everybody else?

Thoughts?

[Powerdoc]

I did not finished the book yet.
Be finished tomorrow for sure.

It will be hard to make more books on the subject. It will recquiere some years. Remember that JFK Rowling developped the plot of the books during 5 years. Then she start to write book after books. That's why there isn't any conradictions between various books : all was there since the beginning.
It's very difficult to achieve this, if you build the plot of a serie, book after book

[e1618978]

The epilogue was fine, but I didn't pay much attention to it - the rest of the book made it the best of the series, IMHO, more action and less teen romance makes for a better book.

[groverat]

***If you have not read the book yet, but plan to, do not read my post.***

The epilogue was overkill, in my opinion, and really a waste of time after the pretty good ending. There was nothing in the epilogue that you would not have thought of yourself, and it feels like such an obvious bow on the top of a gift. "And 19 years later…" is so out-of-place in a story that develops at such a fast pace, and the whole seeing the kids off thing was sappy. We go from a ripped and shredded teenage Harry, facing death and pain and whatever else straight to a happy dad Harry on a train platform. It's like having a bucket of icy water thrown over you.

The tone of the series changed from the first book to the last, and that was the point, but the silly elements chafed as it got more serious in tone ("probity-probe"? Really, JK?). Making so much of this wizard world absurd and silly damaged how seriously it could be taken later on, as things got darker and more dangerous (and, therefore, more interesting). What kept me interested were those little flashes of depth, and the last two books did a good job of exploring those. I really loved the tarnished-Dumbledore subplot.

All the irritating crutches were still there ("a shade of puce/lilac/scarlet that would make Uncle Vernon proud" over and over and over and over and over, like Uncle Vernon means a goddam thing anymore while people are being murdered), but that is part of a writer's personality.

But overall she did a good job making that transition, and the attitude of the first book is very different from the attitude of the last. I really am impressed with the amount of thought and work she put into this. That, more than anything, makes the series so worthwhile and enjoyable. She truly did a fantastic job of what she meant to do.

In all honesty, I really think it is unfortunate that the series might be dead (I don't care about Harry, really), because her writing has gotten better every time. Fantasy writing can be refreshing, and the world she has created is quite interesting. There are themes and story elements that would be nice to have explored (other nations/regions of wizards, for instance).

There is a reason this series is so overwhelming in its popularity, it was very very well done.

I hope she continues writing about this world, or at least passes the task on to some other writer who understands it. I would like to see what else could be done with it, and I think it has legs to run with for a little while longer.

[icfireball]

***If you have not read the book yet, but plan to, do not read my post.***


One of the things that made this series so good is the sense of tradition and familiarity while still having a brilliant action and surprises.

The epilogue I thought was weak, but not for the same reasons mentioned by groverat. I thought it was very important to show that things returned to normal -- that is to say, the same amount of normal that existed in the wizarding world for Harry his first year at Hogwarts. While the latest books in the series were the best because the plot became more mature and more interesting, it's important to remember where the books started. The main thing attracted readers to the series was the incredible imagination and the development of the characters. Should Rowling choose to start another series within the same world, this book sets up the plot perfectly, but if she doesn't, the continuing of that world can be intuited from what little was in the epilogue. There are many directions JK could go with the world: the generation before harry or the generation after (Harry's kids). I thought the epilogue was weak because it felt incomplete and slightly random.

The 7th book had more action, and more intrigue, but the entire book was devoted to the resolution of the series. There were no subplots in this book like in the others, and that was the only disappointment.

[midwinter]

I thought it was a fine ending to the series (although, correct me if I'm wrong, but did anything actually happen to Umbrage?). Yes, the epilogue was overkill.

Apparently, she's writing some kind of Harry Pottermarillion next.

[groverat]

**If you have not read the book yet, but plan to, do not read my post.**

Not a damned thing happened to Umbridge, who is one of the most detestable characters I have ever read. God damn I hate that bitch.

There were no subplots in this book like in the others, and that was the only disappointment.

Asshole Dumbledore and the dead sister might be the best subplot of the entire series.
Nice Kreacher was also pretty awesome.
Well, I guess it depends on what you mean by sub-plot. Neither of those was particularly necessary, especially not nice Kreacher.

I really do not think I would be terribly interested in the adventures of Albus Potter and the other filth and blood traitors.

[icfireball]

**If you have not read the book yet, but plan to, do not read my post.**

Not a damned thing happened to Umbridge, who is one of the most detestable characters I have ever read. God damn I hate that bitch.



Asshole Dumbledore and the dead sister might be the best subplot of the entire series.
Nice Kreacher was also pretty awesome.
Well, I guess it depends on what you mean by sub-plot. Neither of those was particularly necessary, especially not nice Kreacher.

I really do not think I would be terribly interested in the adventures of Albus Potter and the other filth and blood traitors.

I agree -- I thought the stuff on Dumbledore was very interesting...and it is especially relevant in contrast to Snape (your image of him starting bad and then turning very good), and this helped show why Dumbledore trusted Snape.

JK Rowling says she intends to write a Harry Potter "encyclopedia" with a lot of the information and back stories that didn't fit into the narrative. She mentioned for example Dean Thomas. She also said it would fill in the gaps of what happened after the seventh book.

As far as subplot, I didn't mean information about people's past, I meant events and stuff that didn't have to do with the main plot/theme.

And yes. I hated Dolores Umbridge and she should have suffered much more.

[Powerdoc]

***If you have not read the book yet, but plan to, do not read my post.***

The epilogue was overkill, in my opinion, and really a waste of time after the pretty good ending. There was nothing in the epilogue that you would not have thought of yourself, and it feels like such an obvious bow on the top of a gift. "And 19 years later…" is so out-of-place in a story that develops at such a fast pace, and the whole seeing the kids off thing was sappy. We go from a ripped and shredded teenage Harry, facing death and pain and whatever else straight to a happy dad Harry on a train platform. It's like having a bucket of icy water thrown over you.

The tone of the series changed from the first book to the last, and that was the point, but the silly elements chafed as it got more serious in tone ("probity-probe"? Really, JK?). Making so much of this wizard world absurd and silly damaged how seriously it could be taken later on, as things got darker and more dangerous (and, therefore, more interesting). What kept me interested were those little flashes of depth, and the last two books did a good job of exploring those. I really loved the tarnished-Dumbledore subplot.

All the irritating crutches were still there ("a shade of puce/lilac/scarlet that would make Uncle Vernon proud" over and over and over and over and over, like Uncle Vernon means a goddam thing anymore while people are being murdered), but that is part of a writer's personality.

But overall she did a good job making that transition, and the attitude of the first book is very different from the attitude of the last. I really am impressed with the amount of thought and work she put into this. That, more than anything, makes the series so worthwhile and enjoyable. She truly did a fantastic job of what she meant to do.

In all honesty, I really think it is unfortunate that the series might be dead (I don't care about Harry, really), because her writing has gotten better every time. Fantasy writing can be refreshing, and the world she has created is quite interesting. There are themes and story elements that would be nice to have explored (other nations/regions of wizards, for instance).

There is a reason this series is so overwhelming in its popularity, it was very very well done.

I hope she continues writing about this world, or at least passes the task on to some other writer who understands it. I would like to see what else could be done with it, and I think it has legs to run with for a little while longer.

The epilogue was certainly overkill, but seems to have a precise goal : close the Potter's serie of book.
That's said, you will notice that 19 years is an interesting number. The french famous author Alexander Dumas (that JK Rowling certainly know) had write an interesting book : twenty years after, who count the story of the mousketeers, and at least the story of one of the mousqueteers's sons.
Perhaps JK Rowling has this in mind. If there is an another book, the main characters will be the next generation, with special guest appearances of Harry, Ron Hermione and alike
I am nearly sure that it's the end of Potter as central character of the book, but not the end, of the magical universe JK Rowling built.

Time will tell (as always :D)

[groverat]

I hope it's not the end of the universe. It's a fascinating idea, the secret magical world hidden in the real one.

[icfireball]

I hope it's not the end of the universe. It's a fascinating idea, the secret magical world hidden in the real one.

I agree. I do wonder what problems might surface that would allow for plot tension. Will it be everyday problems like in the first few books or paramount problems like in the last few books? It seems that it would have to be the former, not the ladder in order to not diminish the plot of the original series. And then would these books still be interesting if the problems more more everyday/trivial? I think so, just because of the imagination in the World of Harry Potter, and JK Rowlings ability to develop smaller "everyday" problems while holding the readers interest and creating suspense.

I look forward to reading a HP encyclopedia. I'm sure if she does one, it won't be as half-hearted as her previous two extraneous books (the quidditch book and the book about the beasts).

Here's another question...

Of the people who died, who did you not want to die the most? For me I think Fred or Tonks.

[Powerdoc]

I agree. I do wonder what problems might surface that would allow for plot tension. Will it be everyday problems like in the first few books or paramount problems like in the last few books? It seems that it would have to be the former, not the ladder in order to not diminish the plot of the original series. And then would these books still be interesting if the problems more more everyday/trivial? I think so, just because of the imagination in the World of Harry Potter, and JK Rowlings ability to develop smaller "everyday" problems while holding the readers interest and creating suspense.

I look forward to reading a HP encyclopedia. I'm sure if she does one, it won't be as half-hearted as her previous two extraneous books (the quidditch book and the book about the beasts).

Here's another question...

Of the people who died, who did you not want to die the most? For me I think Fred or Tonks.


Voldemort :p:D

[Powerdoc]

At the end of book 6, I was wondering if Snape betrayed or not, and my feelings was that it was not the case.
At the beginning of book 7 the deat of mad eye destroyed this hope, but JK Rowling gived a small clue in her book. The Hogwarth's students where not so much punished for their rebellion at the contrary of the two new teachers.
Snape, was definitively one of the most fascinating character of the serie (much more interesting that Voldemort, that is just pure hate)

[Marvin]

the silly elements chafed as it got more serious in tone ("probity-probe"? Really, JK?). Making so much of this wizard world absurd and silly damaged how seriously it could be taken later on, as things got darker and more dangerous (and, therefore, more interesting).

Do people forget that they are children's books? There should be absolutely nothing remotely interesting about teenage wizards to grown ups. I can't believe how many adults are into this stuff. I even watched a couple of the movies because of it and I was just amazed at how this level of interest is even possible. The acting in the movies is terrible and the stories are very obviously aimed at children.

[e1618978]

Do people forget that they are children's books? There should be absolutely nothing remotely interesting about teenage wizards to grown ups. I can't believe how many adults are into this stuff. I even watched a couple of the movies because of it and I was just amazed at how this level of interest is even possible. The acting in the movies is terrible and the stories are very obviously aimed at children.

The more wealth in the culture, the longer childhood lasts, and we are so rich that childhood lasts forever (at least for males). I love video games, fantasy and science fiction books, dungeons and dragons, etc, just as much as I did when I was 13.

[midwinter]

I can't believe how many adults are into this stuff.

I know. It's crazy (http://forums.appleinsider.com/showthread.php?t=70053).

[BRussell]

I know. It's crazy (http://forums.appleinsider.com/showthread.php?t=70053).

Ouch. :lol:

[groverat]

Even though the first two books were not on the last two books' level as far as mature content, the series was never a Saturday morning cartoon. Harry was an abused orphan living with relatives who hated him after his parents were brutally murdered by a purely-evil force bent on his destruction. This was the first book.

If you think you're too cool for fiction, that's fine. I also loved Philip Pullman's His Dark Materials series. I also love Kurt Vonnegut. I also love Thomas Pynchon.

If someone only reads Harry Potter I can see a problem, but there is nothing childish about liking some fantasy literature, especially when it is directly connected to the real world (as Potter and Materials are).

[Marvin]

I know. It's crazy (http://forums.appleinsider.com/showthread.php?t=70053).

:lol: Ok, but just so you know Prey is rated 18 and features bludgeoning people to death with monkey wrenches. A far cry from Harry Potter, unless I missed something.

Anyway, the majority of my game reporting is for the er younger members of AI. ;)

The more wealth in the culture, the longer childhood lasts, and we are so rich that childhood lasts forever (at least for males). I love video games, fantasy and science fiction books, dungeons and dragons, etc, just as much as I did when I was 13.

There are fantasy adventures aimed at adults and that's ok, I'm just saying Harry Potter is clearly aimed at children so there's not much point in being disappointed when you find childish phrases or stories in there.

I'm still into some stuff like that too. I recently played a game called Post Mortem, which is an adult adventure game with no whiney kids in sight complaining that their wand broke. :D

Harry was an abused orphan living with relatives who hated him after his parents were brutally murdered by a purely-evil force bent on his destruction.

:lol: You are totally overselling that. I remember now that's one of the movies I saw.

Here's what really happened (not a quote from the book):

'However, Voldemort's power was broken when he finally met his match in a 1 year-old boy named Harry Potter. Voldemort arrived at the house of two powerful wizards, Lily Potter and James Potter, and killed them. Then he turned onto their baby, Harry Potter, and used the curse that had killed many powerful great wizards. For reasons unknown, the curse could not touch the boy and rebounded upon You-Know-Who. The Dark Lord should have been killed by the curse, but he was not. Instead of killing the Dark Lord, You-Know-Who was reduced to a worthless, weak spirit, with no powers left. Horrified, the thing that was now You-Know-Who fled far away. So far, the he did not resurface for 10 years.'

Scary stuff, I'll have to keep my light on tonight. :rolleyes:

Does it actually say how they were killed brutally? I'm guessing not by hacking them to pieces with a chain-saw. 'cos to me that's what I would define as brutal.

If you think you're too cool for fiction, that's fine. I also loved Philip Pullman's His Dark Materials series. I also love Kurt Vonnegut. I also love Thomas Pynchon.

Fiction is ok but all I'm saying is that JK Rowling is a children's author and the books are marketed at children and the wording used in the books as you point out is aimed at children. I don't see how stating the obvious that Harry Potter is for children equates to not liking fiction at all.

If someone only reads Harry Potter I can see a problem, but there is nothing childish about liking some fantasy literature, especially when it is directly connected to the real world (as Potter and Materials are).

Now you mention it, I spotted a few child wizards playing quidditch driving home from work yesterday. :)

I ran them over though. :\ Nevermind *chants* Kadavra Avada Reducio Waddiwasi Flipendo Mobilicorpus Obliviate. Ah, all is well again.

[Powerdoc]

Do people forget that they are children's books? There should be absolutely nothing remotely interesting about teenage wizards to grown ups. I can't believe how many adults are into this stuff. I even watched a couple of the movies because of it and I was just amazed at how this level of interest is even possible. The acting in the movies is terrible and the stories are very obviously aimed at children.

There are not entirely child book.

I will say that the books follow an evolution, and become less and less childish, like the heroes (Harry, hermione and ron).
This is especially the case for the movies. some young kids loved the first two episodes, had a problem by the 3 and where litteraly scared by the fourth.

What is very childish in the book, is the Dudleys. These characters where created for kids : it's a kind of caricature. It's the same for Dolores Umbridge. I hate this part : normal I am an adult

IMHO the Harry Potter series is evolving from kids to late teenagers. And yes it's targeted for kids, but like many bestsellers, all the family can read it.

[groverat]

Ok, but just so you know Prey is rated 18 and features bludgeoning people to death with monkey wrenches. A far cry from Harry Potter, unless I missed something.

Physical violence = maturity?

Here is Prey's storyline:
Prey has a serious, dark story based on authentic Cherokee mythology. The game dives into emotional territory rarely explored by similar games as themes of tremendous sacrifice and responsibility surface throughout the story.

Tommy is a Cherokee garage mechanic, refuting his heritage and undecided about his next step in life. His world comes to a halt when an extraterrestrial crisis forces him to awaken spiritual powers from his long-forgotten birthright. Abducted with his people to a menacing mothership orbiting Earth, he sets out to save himself, his girlfriend, and eventually, the entire planet.

Wow, that's basically Dostoevsky.

Scary stuff, I'll have to keep my light on tonight.
…
Does it actually say how they were killed brutally? I'm guessing not by hacking them to pieces with a chain-saw. 'cos to me that's what I would define as brutal.

Again you show a fairly infantile understanding of maturity and even brutality.

Fiction is ok but all I'm saying is that JK Rowling is a children's author and the books are marketed at children and the wording used in the books as you point out is aimed at children. I don't see how stating the obvious that Harry Potter is for children equates to not liking fiction at all.

Are the books marketed at children? The audience for the first book was definitely a young person, 11-13. Well, the kids who read that one at 11-13 are now 21-23. People age and grow up.

Also, it is funny that you take my gripe that a handful of childish elements carried through at face value but refuse to take my discussion of the text as mature. It is almost like you have an idea of what you want it to be and are not at all interested in actually thinking about it.

Now you mention it, I spotted a few child wizards playing quidditch driving home from work yesterday.

If you do not know what I meant by their being connected to the real world then it is obvious that you have not even read them, making your opinion even more worthless than it was before.

[Marvin]

Physical violence = maturity?

Did you not use the fact that there was a brutal murder in Harry Potter and he was abused to justify that it wasn't for kids?

Here is Prey's storyline:
Prey has a serious, dark story based on authentic Cherokee mythology. The game dives into emotional territory rarely explored by similar games as themes of tremendous sacrifice and responsibility surface throughout the story.

Tommy is a Cherokee garage mechanic, refuting his heritage and undecided about his next step in life. His world comes to a halt when an extraterrestrial crisis forces him to awaken spiritual powers from his long-forgotten birthright. Abducted with his people to a menacing mothership orbiting Earth, he sets out to save himself, his girlfriend, and eventually, the entire planet.

Wow, that's basically Dostoevsky.

:) It's pretty deep huh. It has a lot of similarities to real life I think you'll find though.

Again you show a fairly infantile understanding of maturity and even brutality.

No in other words?

Are the books marketed at children? The audience for the first book was definitely a young person, 11-13. Well, the kids who read that one at 11-13 are now 21-23. People age and grow up.

Well, I can see a difference in the presentation of the books as they progress so I could believe that.

Also, it is funny that you take my gripe that a handful of childish elements carried through at face value but refuse to take my discussion of the text as mature. It is almost like you have an idea of what you want it to be and are not at all interested in actually thinking about it.

It seems that's what you tried to do. You are reading it as though it's a book suitable for adults because that's what you want it to be. Maybe the later stories are written in a mature way, I decided after the first couple that it wasn't for me. I'm not keen on the whole story-line involving a school of teenage wizards, which I presume it's still about but hey maybe I'll find a spare moment between playing senselessly violent video games to check out the later stories.

If you do not know what I meant by their being connected to the real world then it is obvious that you have not even read them, making your opinion even more worthless than it was before.

I know exactly what you meant but you can apply that to anything, even to my cool Cherokee alien game. :smokey:

[icfireball]

Do people forget that they are children's books? There should be absolutely nothing remotely interesting about teenage wizards to grown ups. I can't believe how many adults are into this stuff. I even watched a couple of the movies because of it and I was just amazed at how this level of interest is even possible. The acting in the movies is terrible and the stories are very obviously aimed at children.

Harry Potter is a bildungsroman, and this suites both youth and adults. The novel is especially relevant for youth because they can most closely relate to the development of the characters as they themselves are developing in much the same way. But this does not make the Harry Potter series exclusively a kids book. I think most adults will understand that most 11 year olds have a certain maturity level that is somewhat lower than when they are say...17.

The imagination shown in the world of Harry Potter is incredible. The imagination is not at all an issue of maturity. Both adults and youth will agree that the magic representative is both fun and interesting. And JK Rowling set clear limits and boundaries on magic so as to make it realistic and to allow for great plot and tension. There is nothing "childish" or "immature" about lighthearted imagination and fun, which the Harry Potter series, primarily the first few books is full of. Are adults really such prudes that they cannot relate to anything that doesn't have to do with "mature" fun? But my argument does not break here because there is a dark side to the Harry Potter series that is very mature and very interesting. JK Rowling has said that death is the main theme of the series. This doesn't seem "childish" or "immature" to me. The books contain moral complexity (i.e. the three trio characters as they are "mischievous", Snape, or Dumbledore). Moral complexity is something that is distinctively characteristic of adult literature. And heavy discrimination, pain, suffering, and murder also don't seem very childish and immature.

The Harry Potter series is so great because of it's balance of light and dark. The first books are much lighter than the last books (which are very dark), but the light parts in the first few books laid the foundation for the last few books.

The fact is, you really cannot glean anything from the movie except basic plot. You don't get good character development, you miss virtually ALL of the interesting subplot, the plot is oversimplified, and the imagination is limited. The movie can only be good for those who understand and appreciate the books. For those who haven't read the books, the movies offer nothing more than entertainment value. And yes, the acting in the first few movies is pretty awful, but it is getting continually better, and the bad acting can be forgiven in the early movies if and only if you already know and understand the characters and their dynamics.

Regardless, in a 24 hour period, 72 million books have been sold. Not to mention that many people borrow the book from someone else to read it. I'm sorry, but your argument that Harry Potter is exclusively a children's book is incorrect. The most recent book was even published in a separate "adult edition" in the UK. And the most recent movies are PG-13, implying that a certain level of maturity. And do you never what PG-13 movies because 13 year olds are also mature enough to view them? I didn't think so.

[groverat]

Marvin:

Did you not use the fact that there was a brutal murder in Harry Potter and he was abused to justify that it wasn't for kids?

Yes, and his parents' murder was brutal and quite cruel. I said nothing about it being gory or characterized by physical violence. Brutality is about more than physical violence. And I also talked about being an orphan abused by relatives.

It seems that's what you tried to do. You are reading it as though it's a book suitable for adults because that's what you want it to be. Maybe the later stories are written in a mature way, I decided after the first couple that it wasn't for me. I'm not keen on the whole story-line involving a school of teenage wizards, which I presume it's still about but hey maybe I'll find a spare moment between playing senselessly violent video games to check out the later stories.

What makes a book "suitable for adults"? Chainsaws? Guitar solos? Ninjas?

Why not try shutting the hell up and going away?

I know exactly what you meant but you can apply that to anything, even to my cool Cherokee alien game.

Awesome. Keep that in mind next time you want to threadshit for no reason.

[theapplegenius]

Regardless, in a 24 hour period, 72 million books have been sold. That is 24% of the world -- roughly one quarter of the world. Last time I checked, far less than 24% of the world is between the ages of 8 and 18, and that only represents the sales of the initial 24-hour period. Not to mention that many people borrow the book from someone else to read it. I'm sorry, but your argument that Harry Potter is exclusively a children's book is incorrect. The most recent book was even published in a separate "adult edition" in the UK. And the most recent movies are PG-13, implying that a certain level of maturity. And do you never what PG-13 movies because 13 year olds are also mature enough to view them? I didn't think so.

There's only 288 million people in your world? Wow, sounds nice. Can I move there?

[icfireball]

There's only 288 million people in your world? Wow, sounds nice. Can I move there?

Oppps... sorry -- I was confusing stats. My bad. :embarrass

Anyways... my point was that a lot of adults read the books.

Anyways, it's estimated that roughly 25%-30% have read at least one of the books. (~400million books [~7% of the worlds population] sold + people share books within family -- the average family size is 4, not everybody in the family reads the book, but libraries get a lot of reads per signal copy)