Harry Potter (the series) comes to a close (beware of spoilers)
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?
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?
Comments
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
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.
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.
Apparently, she's writing some kind of Harry Pottermarillion next.
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.
**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.
***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
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.
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
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)
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.
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.
I can't believe how many adults are into this stuff.
I know. It's crazy.
I know. It's crazy.
Ouch.
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).
I know. It's crazy.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.