Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows - the SPOILER thread!

I agree that it seemed a little drawn out, but since Harry was the last horcrux, the horcrux had to be destroyed before Voldemort could be killed. If the Avada Kedavra curse had rebounded in the forest, the best that could have happened was that he would have been returned to "less than a spirit" as he was after his first attack on Harry when he was 1. Because she chose to make Harry a horcrux, I don't know how she could have done it otherwise...

I would agree with you about the ending.  She would have been better off with a rundown on the future of Hogwarts and the world at large than giving us warm fuzzy imagery of the kissy-faced couples.  I found Neville's fate more interesting at the end than Harry and Ginny's.  Having said that, I didn't see the limbo scene.  I didn't expect Harry to die (probably should have), and having "died", I didn't expect him to be anything other than dead.  It was a good device for giving us another crack at Dumbledore (who I've missed sorely in the previous portions of the book) and getting some clarifications.   Did anyone else think that the phoenix smoke rising from Dumbledore's tomb at the end of the sixth book was meant to foreshadow a return? I was so sure he wasn't really dead.  It seems clear now that the symbolism was meant to foreshadow Harry's return, not Dumbledore's.  

I agree that it seemed a little drawn out, but since Harry was the last horcrux, the horcrux had to be destroyed before Voldemort could be killed. If the Avada Kedavra curse had rebounded in the forest, the best that could have happened was that he would have been returned to "less than a spirit" as he was after his first attack on Harry when he was 1. Because she chose to make Harry a horcrux, I don't know how she could have done it otherwise...

Due to her notorious plot twists, I would have found it more believable that when Harry was bitten by the basilisk in the 2nd book, the part of him that was the horcrux was essentially destroyed along with the diary because both were pierced by the basilisk fang. Then with the curse rebounding, there wouldn't have been confusion about the horcrux being destroyed. But then again, that's just my idea of one of the ways it could have been different. There could have been so many other things way out in left field. Like... What if the scar was somehow magically erased and the scar itself had been the horcrux? Then Harry would not have done the coming back to life bit, and the horcrux that was part of him would have been destroyed as well.

I would agree with you about the ending.  She would have been better off with a rundown on the future of Hogwarts and the world at large than giving us warm fuzzy imagery of the kissy-faced couples.  I found Neville's fate more interesting at the end than Harry and Ginny's.  Having said that, I didn't see the limbo scene.  I didn't expect Harry to die (probably should have), and having "died", I didn't expect him to be anything other than dead.  It was a good device for giving us another crack at Dumbledore (who I've missed sorely in the previous portions of the book) and getting some clarifications.   Did anyone else think that the phoenix smoke rising from Dumbledore's tomb at the end of the sixth book was meant to foreshadow a return? I was so sure he wasn't really dead.  It seems clear now that the symbolism was meant to foreshadow Harry's return, not Dumbledore's. 

I agree about Neville. He totally morphed into a man in the 7th book, more so than ever before. It was such a change in him from what was once perceived as a cowardly pansy to a strong leader that I was more interested in him at the end than perhaps how many kids who had and with whom.

I don't even remember the smoke rising part. Was that when his tomb is broken into? All along, Dumbledore has been associated with the phoenix, so his "rising from the ashes" would have probably seemed very feasible. I definitely agree on that!

I don't even remember the smoke rising part. Was that when his tomb is broken into? All along, Dumbledore has been associated with the phoenix, so his "rising from the ashes" would have probably seemed very feasible. I definitely agree on that!

The smoke rose during Dumbledore's funeral, at the end of the sixth book.

Don't know if anyone else noticed, but she slipped in two Bible verses too: the one on Harry's parents tombstone "Where your heart is, there your treasure will be also", and the other "Death Eater" one "Death is the last enemy to be defeated" (These are paraphrases, I don't have the book in front of me, DH has made off with it).  I wondered if these quotes would be easily recognised by others not raised as a Christian (both are NT).  Sneaky JK!!

Yes, I did.  English major/Medieval History minor here.  Raised a Catholic; forced to take Latin at school.  And the best lesson we learned was how to pinch other peoples' work and cobble it together creatively to make something 'new'. 

I must say, JK learned this better than most.

Oddly enough, she is classically trained.  Her degree was in medieval and classical literature 

That's not entirely true - her degree was in French and Classics. According to the Exeter Uni website, the current Classics course doesn't actually involve much study of literature at all. It's mostly courses in Greek and Latin texts, Ancient novels and Philosophy - which wouldn't really have given her any help with writing modern children's fiction.

the current Classics course doesn't actually involve much study of literature at all. It's mostly courses in Greek and Latin texts, Ancient novels and Philosophy

THANK YOU!  Not that this has anything to do with JKR and her writing talent, but as a former Classics major, it's nice to know that SOMEONE out there understands that Classics isn't another name for Reading The Great Books of Literature.

(Luckily my undergrad calls it "classical languages and literature" but considering I double-majored in American history, it all gets a bit bulky....)

Aren't most good stories pinched from classical literature?  No one's really arguing that Harry Potter is a classic because it's purely original - I think most people believe it's a 'classic' of its time because of its scope and impact.  I'd say a book/story is good if an author can use time-honored storylines and give them a new feel that speaks to a new generation.

I have no problem at all with the themes and scenes in the final book - to me, it doesn't matter if parts of the story have parallels with religion/Lord of the Rings/Narnia/WWII. What does matter is that these things made the story interesting, built up the atmosphere and kept you reading.

Who cares if JKR doesn't write beautiful, classical prose? I doubt that what she was thinking of when she wrote the first book - a children's story to be enjoyed by children of the 90's. What counts is the fact that she tells a good story and people enjoy reading it - that's what made it popular in the first place.

To be honest, probably the only classical literature she studied at university would have been French literature, as Classics doesn't involve reading Shakespeare, Jane Austen or Oscar Wilde. Now had she done her degree in English, then maybe you could argue that she was classically trained.

Who cares if JKR doesn't write beautiful, classical prose? I doubt that what she was thinking of when she wrote the first book - a children's story to be enjoyed by children of the 90's.

Exactly.  I really don't get why people (in general, not you guys) analyze the quality of writing to death- it's just a children's book after all.  It's fun to theorize about aspects of the storyline or the details of the wizard world, but in the end- it is what it is, a fun story.  JKR's writing is good enough for me- if it was horrendous I wouldn't read Harry Potter, but it doesn't have to be up there with the literary classics and I don't expect it to be.

I'm all for a healthy debate, but here's the bottom line:

The quality of her writing isn't important.  The fact that these books have got millions of kids reading?  THAT'S important.



(Edited to clarify)

I'm all for a healthy debate, and I've found this onebut here's the bottom line:

The quality of her writing isn't important.  The fact that these books have got millions of kids reading?  THAT'S important.

I agree, and honestly, I like her writing style. It's breezy and easy to read without falling into the total mind-candy range of books. If you compare anyone to the greatest writers in history, of course most will pale by comparison. But for children's books, these are exceptionally well done. Which is why they get so many adult fans!

Someday,
I had forgotten about the basilisk bite in book two. Now that you've reminded me of that, it would have made more sense for the horcrux within Harry to have been destroyed with that bite. I would say that Fawkes's tears healing Harry might have meant the horcrux was not destroyed, but in book 7 Harry did not appear to be hurt after his "death."

I agree, and honestly, I like her writing style. It's breezy and easy to read without falling into the total mind-candy range of books. If you compare anyone to the greatest writers in history, of course most will pale by comparison. But for children's books, these are exceptionally well done. Which is why they get so many adult fans!

I agree with you and Fun Girl. I have students wanting to challenge themselves with reading the Harry Potter books. Any books to "hook" kids into reading are great, once they get the "reading bug" then they are more willing to try other books! I agree that if she hadn't been so thoughtful, artistic, and creative with her writing that it wouldn't have gotten the adult following it did.

That's not entirely true - her degree was in French and Classics. According to the Exeter Uni website, the current Classics course doesn't actually involve much study of literature at all. It's mostly courses in Greek and Latin texts, Ancient novels and Philosophy - which wouldn't really have given her any help with writing modern children's fiction.

I suppose it depends on how you define literature.  I minored in Classical Studies (majored in archaeology), which included a healthy helping of ancient texts - something I consider to be literature, and without which, the relatively modern texts we think of as "classics" couldn't exist.  I can't say I agree that a background in the classical texts is useless to a children's author - it depends entirely on what you want kids to imbibe.  I loved myth (Norse, Irish, as well as Greek/Roman) and legend and the grand scale of these stories as a kid, and I certainly would have loved Harry Potter.  Kids are smarter than we give them credit for.  Most children's books are a bit too dumbed-down in my opinion. 

Kids are smarter than we give them credit for.  Most children's books are a bit too dumbed-down in my opinion. 

Captain Underpants anyone?