Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows

[demondude]

Apparently she wrote the epilogue because she didn't want other authors to take her series and expand on it, It was never supposed to be the true ending.

[Araciel]

Apparently she wrote the epilogue because she didn't want other authors to take her series and expand on it, It was never supposed to be the true ending.

Not that it's stopped them anyway...

[Depression Moon]

This book is my econd favorite in the series. It held suspense throughout the whole book, but the epilogue didn't explain enough for me. The whole issue with Dumbledore supporting Grindewald in the past without really any explanation as to why he was so fathomed by this evil man, seemed underdeveloped. There was also a couple of deaths that I wished didn't occur in the book like George's.

[Aerith's Knight]

I really liked this book, it had lots of action and some deep emotions, but without overdoing it.

As DM said, the Dumbledore/Grindelwald story was a little underdeveloped and rather unexplained.

But the chapter when Harry walks towards his doom, without knowing he would survive, when everything just clicks..

..I got goosebumps.

[NeoTifa]

some moving parts, but on the whole..... the part with kings cross on was horrible. she shouldve stopped with harry somehow sacrificing himself to kill voldemort. then maybe later on a sub series where ron and hermione go and rekill the once thought dead volddy. idk. but harry shouldve died in the battle. it wouldve made more...... inpact. but this is a kiddie book, sooo.....

[Depression Moon]

kdie book what's so kiddie about the motivation of human life and there is also things concerning underage drinkin, profanity, and sexuality in the books.

[Ouch!]

As such, I generally think defining magic by what it can do as opposed to what it can't can avoid both situations entirely.

I couldn't agree less. Much of what I enjoy about fantasy is the possibilities that are opened by a new world. By defining magic and other supernatural forces as being able to do this and that, but nothing more, you limit the possibilities and, doing that, you enclose the world in a box. You make it predictable.

I absolutely hate the idea of a perfectly defined world, a world where there is nothing new to discover. I don't see the point of a world where there is already an answer to everything. One of the most charming things about even the real world is that we don't know everything, that there are still some mysteries left.

There's a difference between putting your world inside a box and setting down some ground rules. Rowling's only rule was that magic can't bring people back to life. Otherwise, there were very few specifications to its limitations. That aside, the rules for a given system of magic never have to be made clear to the reader. In the end, I just think that explaining away the ending with a vague, "Nobody could have known!" is one of the worst cop-outs ever.

That aside, there are other (and arguably better) ways to be unpredictable without resorting to such an unsatisfying technique as a deus ex machina.

[rubah]

JKR's magic can do anything so long as you know the proper latin to invent it 8)

I thought the ending was perfect. The epilogue was just cute fluff to lull you to sleep with happy thoughts at 8am on July 21 2007.

[scrumpleberry]

Spoiler marking? What the hell? It's been more than a year, I'm not spoiler marking anything.

JKR's magic can do anything so long as you know the proper latin to invent it 8)

I thought the ending was perfect. The epilogue was just cute fluff to lull you to sleep with happy thoughts at 8am on July 21 2007.

4am, get in >;o


(Although I spent a couple of hours afterwards feeling depressed about Schnaaaape :kaocry2


People complain about her dubious latin, but it's a whole sight better than just making stuff up, isn't it? And I think it's just fine, all language warps over time, the spells would be the same. Heck, maybe the wizards who invented them knew only dubious latin. It's not a massive point, in any case.

Epilogue was pretty "ehhhh..." but keep in mind she wrote it when she wrote PS, which was a lot more fluffy happy fun magic time and not as complex, and it does tie off everything nicely. Jesus, she has a thing about making people have hundreds of kids though. Look at the family trees on wikipedia, and you'll see what I mean. Ted and Scorpius are the only only children of the lot of them!

This was actually my favourite book, perhaps because I have a very fangirl mentality towards Harry Potter and it tied lots of things up and was awfully epic compared with the rest x)

Possibly my favourite thing about it was Ron's final transition from dickery into...not dickery. It just worked, and I think it made him a much more real character. He did get very nasty in books 5 and 6, but I still couldn't help but like him because he was quite flawed without much reason, which I thought made him a lot more real.

Oh, I liked Grindeldore. It finished off Dumbledore nicely, and it explained his fixation with second chances and the whole POWAH KORRUPTZ ME thing I felt worked very nicely for him.

The random appearances of Death Eaters every where was cool, because throughout the other books she never really developed a sense of terror or anything. It was always stories about Voldemorts last reign, then BAM omg everyone is dying everywhere~

Agreed :3

[Rantz]

There's a difference between putting your world inside a box and setting down some ground rules. Rowling's only rule was that magic can't bring people back to life. Otherwise, there were very few specifications to its limitations. That aside, the rules for a given system of magic never have to be made clear to the reader. In the end, I just think that explaining away the ending with a vague, "Nobody could have known!" is one of the worst cop-outs ever.

That aside, there are other (and arguably better) ways to be unpredictable without resorting to such an unsatisfying technique as a deus ex machina.

But really, nobody in Rowling's world could have known. Harry's relation to Voldemort is unique; no one has ever experienced the same situation before. To propose that some character could have predicted how such events would unfold is bizarre! Even the range of what simple spells and can be "invented" is unknown, it's really no surprise that the effects of such arcane magic is unknown.

Either way, I suggest we call it a matter of differing opinions before this turns into a discussion of literary technique.

[rubah]

I'm sorry! I'm getting old! I did go outside for like half an hour and bask in the golden sunlight and think about how it paralleled the sun rising after the battle of hogwarts.

[Miriel]

good book! but tbh i like the fan made epilogues more!

Haha, yeah. I read some fan made epilogues that were pretty great. And I actually resisted giving the book a second read so that the details will remain fuzzy in my head and I can fill things in how I think things should have gone down rather than how they actually went down.

[Ouch!]

There's a difference between putting your world inside a box and setting down some ground rules. Rowling's only rule was that magic can't bring people back to life. Otherwise, there were very few specifications to its limitations. That aside, the rules for a given system of magic never have to be made clear to the reader. In the end, I just think that explaining away the ending with a vague, "Nobody could have known!" is one of the worst cop-outs ever.

That aside, there are other (and arguably better) ways to be unpredictable without resorting to such an unsatisfying technique as a deus ex machina.

But really, nobody in Rowling's world could have known. Harry's relation to Voldemort is unique; no one has ever experienced the same situation before. To propose that some character could have predicted how such events would unfold is bizarre! Even the range of what simple spells and can be "invented" is unknown, it's really no surprise that the effects of such arcane magic is unknown.

Either way, I suggest we call it a matter of differing opinions before this turns into a discussion of literary technique. :)

I'm not quite so sure what's wrong with a discussion of literary technique when we're talking about a book. On a final note, I understand why it was able to go unexplained. That's exactly what makes it a deus ex machina. It came out of absolutely nowhere because there was no reason for a good explanation of foreshadowing. I think this is weak storytelling. Even if it works due to the way the whole system was set up, I just think it was poorly done.

[Depression Moon]

I don't really know if I like ms. Rowling anymore. I just received a letter from her that I sent out six months ago and I don't think she even read it because she sent me some stuff about FAQs on her book and life. What I was asking her was if she could give some good advice to a first time fantasy author.

[Rantz]

But really, nobody in Rowling's world could have known. Harry's relation to Voldemort is unique; no one has ever experienced the same situation before. To propose that some character could have predicted how such events would unfold is bizarre! Even the range of what simple spells and can be "invented" is unknown, it's really no surprise that the effects of such arcane magic is unknown.

Either way, I suggest we call it a matter of differing opinions before this turns into a discussion of literary technique.

I'm not quite so sure what's wrong with a discussion of literary technique when we're talking about a book. On a final note, I understand why it was able to go unexplained. That's exactly what makes it a deus ex machina. It came out of absolutely nowhere because there was no reason for a good explanation of foreshadowing. I think this is weak storytelling. Even if it works due to the way the whole system was set up, I just think it was poorly done.

I guess I put it wrongly. What I meant was that if we're discussing literary technique in general, it's probably better suited for another thread. If we're discussing this single case, I think we've already reached the end of the line, since we both acknowledge that it could hardly have been foreshadowed (this is where I misinterpreted your original post—I thought you were saying it should have been), but disagree whether it's good or bad storytelling. There's no proving each other right or wrong there.