The obligatory Harry Potter 7 thread with spoilers

[Sprayber]

Originally posted by aneeshm

When Molly killed Bellatrix, how did she do it? And how was that different from killing her using AK?

AK-47. The very best there is. When you absolutely, positively got to kill every mother****er in the room, accept no substitutes -- Ordell Robbie:

[monolith94]

Originally posted by aneeshm


So the magical world has no concept of "killing in self defence", and even the physical reality of that world reflects this moral stance?

Why kill in self defense when petrificus totalus pretty much negates any aggression?

[reismark]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Who got a reprieve in this book?

I think it was Draco.

I disagree. Remember, JKR said she wrote the epilogue many years before the rest of the book, and Draco's presence in the epilogue is an essential part of it - her way of saying that time has mended things somewhat, and not something she would just throw in there at the last second. I'd consider Lucius, Hagrid, or Luna far more likely candidates.

Hopefully JKR will clarify this at some point.

[Jon Miller]

There seems, except in certain cases (all Death Eaters) a certain reluctance to kill in the Wizard world. I mean, even the big enemy before Riddle was just locked away in a tower after his defeat.

JM

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
According to HBP (page 498 in the hard cover US version), Dumbledore tells Harry:

"By committing murder. Killing rips the soul apart. The wizard intent on creating a Horcrux would use the damage to his advantage: He would encase the torn portion -"

That's not AK-specific.

[Jon Miller]

For one thing, there doesn't seem to be too many pureblood wizards.. we have an awful lot of examples where (magical) children are treated as very special...

JM

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
That's not AK-specific.

It's quite freaking obvious it's referring to AK.

[Jon Miller]

Umm, there seemed to be hints about Quidditch... but I thought it was going to be a big deal in this book?

JM

[Tuberski]

There will be another series. Harry Potter in his 30's. Voldemort brought back by the stone to teach a new evil genius.

But, this time, it's Albus Severus that is the main character.

She's already hinted at the possibility of another book.

Quidditch was not supposed to have any part in this book.

ACK!

[Imran Siddiqui]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19935372/%5C

WOOOT! Confirmation of a Harry Potter encyclopedia "probably will" be written by Rowling (with all the notes she already has, it probably wouldn't be that difficult and make mucho $$). Hopefully sooner rather than later.

[Tuberski]

Oh, did anyone notice that the final book takes place in 1998?

ACK!

[Imran Siddiqui]

Yes (well, 1997-1998). Which makes it quite clear that HBP (1996-7) had the Muggle PM as Blair.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
It's quite freaking obvious it's referring to AK.

No.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Yes .

[Nostromo]

I finished it sunday night. Some comments:

My immediate reaction was: its a very good book. But now that the dust as settled I would say that the book is uneven, like the series. Some parts are great, others are not so great.

For example, the part on Snape was very well done, IMO. Based on Snape's testimony, I came to believe that Dumbledore didn't really care about Harry, that he was merely a pawn. And I thought that was an interesting twist. But, in the chapters that followed, Dumbledore really seemed to care. Oh, well...

The ending was extremely convoluted, IMO. After I've read it for the first time, I said to myself: "Wait, what the **** just happened?" I read the ending a second time, and now its clearer, somehow, but I'm still confused about a couple of things.

And that brings me to a problem I have with the series as a whole, especially the books following 'Prisoner of Azkaban': the storyline is needlessly convoluted, IMO.
Its as if she got herself into "narrative traps" and the only way to get out of those was either to invent those convoluted plot twists or to use deus ex machinas. The narrative sometimes felt like a Rube Goldberg machine.

Rowling created a charming little fantasy world, full of whimsy. She created a lot of memorable characters. I feel however that Voldemort is one of the weakest characters. He's kinda lame. Great name, though. But not quite Sauron. Umbridge was a lot better, IMO. God do I hate that woman!