HP&tDH SPOILERS

[LessinSF]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
I read someplace that she'd written the last chapter years ago to sort of give herself an endpoint to work towards. She said something about having to rewrite it because she killed someone off and gave someone else a reprieve. I don't know if the Epilogue counts for her as the last chapter, but my guess is that it probably does. I suspect that the Epilogue may actually serve more for her than it does for us. I didn't really need it, and I don't think that the story really suffers without it. The only thing it really does is show that life goes on and that Harry recognized ultimately that Snape was acting unbelievably bravely throughout his lifetime without anyone knowing it.

I will use this as a launching point.

1. The epilogue read like the ending to a horror movie, with all sorts of options for future exploitation left available.

2. The deaths were di minimus, assuming that voldemort was correct when he described 1/2 of the Hogwarts defenders as having been killed. We got Mad-Eye, an owl, one half of a group of twins that no one could tell apart anyway, Colin Creevy, and a wannabe abandoning father, etc. If you listed characters in terms of Harry's attachment to them, they were all at the bottom of the Boar'sBreath 100.

3. Given the theme of being willing to die for those you love, very few were proof in the pudding.

4. Re theme, I do not think it was Love. It was Sacrifice for a cult figure (Harry) allegedly representing some Greater Belief despite increasing evidence against the premise (Dumbledore) . As such, it reminded me of Jamestown, Heaven's Gate. Christianity and Islam, with the unrealistic outcome that [insert savior here] does really exist.

5. Further, Rowling never validly made the point why wizards/witches should not govern Muggles for their greater good. Other than Muggle parents of magic children, Muggles are portrayed as needing some serious help. In essence, they are the mongoloids of England. Most of us would probably not encourage separate goverance by idiots, imbiciles and morons (all as defined by Webster's) amongst us, while we went about our uber-business, leaving them to their ignorance (which raises questions of theology/genetics which Rowlings never addresses).

6. They are ultimately children's books which adults have enjoyed. That said, Rowlings avoided completing any analogies to racism or bigotry that are suggested, as she ducked any questions of theology/genetics. It was a decent read, but - in the end - nothing more substantial or insightful than book 13 of the Oz series.

[Fugee]

Originally posted by LessinSF
4. Re theme, I do not think it was Love. It was Sacrifice for a cult figure (Harry) allegedly representing some Greater Belief despite increasing evidence against the premise (Dumbledore) . As such, it reminded me of Jamestown, Heaven's Gate. Christianity and Islam, with the unrealistic outcome that [insert savior here] does really exist.

I got a completely different take on this. The closest analogy I felt was to WWII -- with Voldemort as a Hitler figure and the Order of the Phoenix et al being like the Resistance and others being either part of the Nazi movement (Death Eaters), or going with the program out of fear or greed or just hunkering down trying to keep a low profile and stay safe.

And rather than Harry being a savior figure, I saw him as more of a rallying point because he had faced Voldemort several times and survived.

[mommylawyer]

1. The epilogue read like the ending to a horror movie, with all sorts of options for future exploitation left available.

---While I agree that most of the epilogue was completely unnecessary, I think the main point was that Harry had eventually processed the depth of loyalty of Severus snape as well as understand how the power of Snape's love for Lily cost him his entire life.

2. The deaths were di minimus, assuming that voldemort was correct when he described 1/2 of the Hogwarts defenders as having been killed. We got Mad-Eye, an owl, one half of a group of twins that no one could tell apart anyway, Colin Creevy, and a wannabe abandoning father, etc. If you listed characters in terms of Harry's attachment to them, they were all at the bottom of the Boar'sBreath 100.

---I disagree here. The deaths were not di minimus. forst we are looking at the circle of 1 kid - If you look at the series as a whole, this kid has literally lost almost everyone that has ever loved him. Lupin, wasn't peripheral - he was the person who introduced Harry to his parents - the one who knew them and could tell him the stuff a kid wants to know. Perhaps you've never lost a parent as a kid but those are the people you want in your lives, the ones who bring life and stories to the photographs, to give you the memeories you don't have. Certainly Tonks could have stayed home with Teddy, but she didn't and i don't think it was simply because she was an Auror, it was because her husband was out there fighting. Similarly Mad-eye represented the fighter. The one who'd always be there to protect him (leaving aside that 8 month stint in the trunk). Colin and Hedwig represent a loss of childhood innocance as well as the random death that was happening. the death of Fred was important too, to show that it was simply Harry's family that was losing... If you expand this the encompass lots of kids in the wizarding world - that is a lot of people. Harry was one example.

3. Given the theme of being willing to die for those you love, very few were proof in the pudding.

---Again, I disagree, using the above as well as looking at characters like Mundungus, who lack of desrie to die or sacrifice led to the death of moody, or Narcissa Malfoy, whose love for her kid superceded her devotion to Voldemort.


4. Re theme, I do not think it was Love. It was Sacrifice for a cult figure (Harry) allegedly representing some Greater Belief despite increasing evidence against the premise (Dumbledore) . As such, it reminded me of Jamestown, Heaven's Gate. Christianity and Islam, with the unrealistic outcome that [insert savior here] does really exist.

--People weren't doing this for Harry....Harry was not a lone horseman, Many people in the wizarding world were doing their part. Look at Neville and the DA, the order existed before Harry...

5. Further, Rowling never validly made the point why wizards/witches should not govern Muggles for their greater good. Other than Muggle parents of magic children, Muggles are portrayed as needing some serious help. In essence, they are the mongoloids of England. Most of us would probably not encourage separate goverance by idiots, imbiciles and morons (all as defined by Webster's) amongst us, while we went about our uber-business, leaving them to their ignorance (which raises questions of theology/genetics which Rowlings never addresses).

--I actually agree with you here regarding the clarification of why is was not a good idea for wizards to govern muggles. that said i think she offered the relationships between wizards and the centaurs, the goblins and the house elves as at least a point of reference that perhaps there would be some problems...

6. They are ultimately children's books which adults have enjoyed. That said, Rowlings avoided completing any analogies to racism or bigotry that are suggested, as she ducked any questions of theology/genetics. It was a decent read, but - in the end - nothing more substantial or insightful than book 13 of the Oz series.


---They are children's books so perhaps you are right in stating that she doesn't go terribly deep intoissues of theology etc... but I also don't think this was the place for that, as these books are written for children. But children are incredibly adept at reading situations and 'seeing' how people feel etc... so perhaps if the children can see what happenes when one type of people declare themselves more valuable and the resultant loss, they will be able to recall that lesson in a real life situation.

[taxwonk]

The overriding theme of the saga is not "love" in the "I love you" sense. It's "love" in the "I have faith in the inherent goodness of the human race and believe it will overcome the urge to power."

Dumbledore failed at Harry's age. He fell into the "for the greater good" trap that is so attractive to so many. He was victim to his own intelligence and he fooled himself for a time into thinking that he knew better than most what was good for them.

Harry wrestled with a different demon. He believed that it was his burden to save the world from Voldemort not because of his inherent supriority, but because he felt it was thrust upon him from birth. It was certainly thrust upon him by Dumbledore. Harry won not because he beleived he was superior to Voldemort, but because he believed the world was better than the Voldemorts and the Death Eaters.

[SlaveNoMore]

Less
6. as she ducked any questions of theology..

I'd disagree entirely, and say with its themes of good and evil, redemptive love, the afterlife and the eternal soul, Rowling joins both Tolkien and Lewis as a writer of Christian allegory.

whereas Oz was a cautionary tale of populism and the gold standard.....

[LessinSF]

Originally posted by mommylawyer
... so perhaps if the children can see what happenes when one type of people declare themselves more valuable and the resultant loss, they will be able to recall that lesson in a real life situation.

But they are. They have defeated most of the ills that plague the world - energy, food, power, locomotion, distance, etc. are no longer issues for wizards/wiches, but they deny that to the underclass Muggles. This is not similar to the Sneetches. It is more akin to Star Trek's theory of non-interference with non-spacefaring species.

But that begs the question, which rowling has implicitly answered - wizards/witches are better and different than Muggles. This not discrimination on the basis of a distinction without a difference, such as skin color. This is discrimination on the basis of a difference - ability and power. Her answer, like Star Trek's, is to let the lessers alone. And some may agree, and some may differ, but the lesson she teaches - admitted impliedly - is to not take care of the inferior, the children, but to let them make their own mistakes despite the wizards/witches ability to improve their lives. I admit that it is not patronizing; it is indifferent, and it draws analogies to what the U.S.'s role should be in the world. Hands off, or the world's policeman?

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by LessinSF
But they are. They have defeated most of the ills that plague the world - energy, food, power, locomotion, distance, etc. are no longer issues for wizards/wiches, but they deny that to the underclass Muggles. This is not similar to the Sneetches. It is more akin to Star Trek's theory of non-interference with non-spacefaring species.

But that begs the question, which rowling has implicitly answered - wizards/witches are better and different than Muggles. This not discrimination on the basis of a distinction without a difference, such as skin color. This is discrimination on the basis of a difference - ability and power. Her answer, like Star Trek's, is to let the lessers alone. And some may agree, and some may differ, but the lesson she teaches - admitted impliedly - is to not take care of the inferior, the children, but to let them make their own mistakes despite the wizards/witches ability to improve their lives. I admit that it is not patronizing; it is indifferent, and it draws analogies to what the U.S.'s role should be in the world. Hands off, or the world's policeman?

I don't know. It seems like they're not necessarily inferior, just have different ways of dealing with things. I mean, if Harry had internet access in book 5, Sirius would still be alive. A quick IM to the Order would have verified that Sirius was perfectly ok and Voldemort was fucking around with his head more than anyone thought. And it didn't seem all that much that Hermione looked down upon her parents for being dentists instead of whatever the hell witches and wizards do. She just saw them as being different than her. They were ill equipped to deal with an attack from Voldemort, but I suspect that wizards stuck in a muggle situation wouldn't really be all that in luck either.

[LessinSF]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
I don't know. It seems like they're not necessarily inferior, just have different ways of dealing with things. I mean, if Harry had internet access in book 5, Sirius would still be alive. A quick IM to the Order would have verified that Sirius was perfectly ok and Voldemort was fucking around with his head more than anyone thought. And it didn't seem all that much that Hermione looked down upon her parents for being dentists instead of whatever the hell witches and wizards do. She just saw them as being different than her. They were ill equipped to deal with an attack from Voldemort, but I suspect that wizards stuck in a muggle situation wouldn't really be all that in luck either.

Free power, in essence. How would that change the world?

[Fugee]

Originally posted by LessinSF
But they are. They have defeated most of the ills that plague the world - energy, food, power, locomotion, distance, etc. are no longer issues for wizards/wiches, but they deny that to the underclass Muggles.

Not quite. They can't conjure up food from nothing (which is why Harry, Ron & Hermione had a hard time getting food when they were on the run) or money (which is why the Weasleys were poor) -- and there are several other things that can't be magicked, but I can't remember what they were.

In many ways wizards live more primitive lives than Muggles. I found myself wondering why wizards used parchment & quills -- rather than even a low tech alternative such as paper and pens, much less something more useful like computers. (ETA: Obviously it added color to the story, but it was odd if wizards were supposed to be superior.)

[Did you just call me Coltrane?]

I thought she'd have a bigger role. There were early signs of her being a badass witch.

And is the dying baby at King's Cross the part of Harry that Voldemort killed (the horcrux), or is it just the piece of what's left of Vodemort's soul?

Or are they essentially the same thing?

[greatwhitenorthchick]

Originally posted by Did you just call me Coltrane?
I thought she'd have a bigger role. There were early signs of her being a badass witch.

And is the dying baby at King's Cross the part of Harry that Voldemort killed (the horcrux), or is it just the piece of what's left of Vodemort's soul?

Or are they essentially the same thing?

Some interview that JKR gave on the Leaky Cauldron site said, in kind of a vague way, IIRC, that it was the piece of what's left of Voldemort.

[ltl/fb]

So someone from work has loaned me the book, and apparently I am "no fun" and possibly some sort of "poopyhead" for already knowing a fair amount of what happens.

[mommylawyer]

Originally posted by Did you just call me Coltrane?
I thought she'd have a bigger role. There were early signs of her being a badass witch.

And is the dying baby at King's Cross the part of Harry that Voldemort killed (the horcrux), or is it just the piece of what's left of Vodemort's soul?

Or are they essentially the same thing?

I too was a little bit disappointed in Ginny's role, although to be fair, she wasn't doing to bad when she, Hermione and Luna? were holding their own with Bellatrix, Moldy top's chick. Granted it was 3 on 1, but it was 3 kids on one very bad ass chick.....

I DO like that in the subsequent interviews JK says she went to play for the all women's quidditch team and is a reporter... the one bug in my craw with this series is the whole single woman =powerful witch, married woman = marshmellow.....

[dtb]

Originally posted by mommylawyer
I DO like that in the subsequent interviews JK says she went to play for the all women's quidditch team and is a reporter... the one bug in my craw with this series is the whole single woman =powerful witch, married woman = marshmellow.....

What about Lily Potter? She was a powerful witch! And Tonks, too. And Ginny and Hermione.

We don't know about McGonnagal, do we?

Or Trelawney. (could be an example of unmarried = marshmallow)

[mommylawyer]

Originally posted by dtb
What about Lily Potter? She was a powerful witch! And Tonks, too. And Ginny and Hermione.

We don't know about McGonnagal, do we?

Or Trelawney. (could be an example of unmarried = marshmallow)

We are told that Lily was powerful but we never see her in action; Tonks falls in love and loses some control of her power until Remu finally marries her...and then she is preggo then dead; Ginny/Hermione - kids and single; McGonnagle - marital Status unknown but no mention of a spouse in 7 years, no spouse fighting by her side in the final battle etc.....

Who we see in action - Bellatrix - married, but for love or duty?; Tonks pre-marriage; again McGonnagal; we hear about Amelia Bones; old creey ink cat lady - can't pull her name right now etc.....