I think that the reason James, Lily, Lupin and Sirius were the ones that were by Harry when he used the stone was because they were people that he was extremely close to, and all played a parental role to him (meaning Lupin and Sirius here, not James and Lily, obviously), I think it would have been great if Snape was there also, but I may have too much Star Wars on the brain.
I think Snape was left out of that scene for two reasons: 1) After seeing his memories, Harry totally trusted and respected Snape, but he didn't love him. And at that moment, he only wanted people whom he'd loved during life. 2) If Snape'd been added, it would've put him, James, and Lily into the same scene -- it would've been a little uncomfortable, and it would've divided the reader's attention from the main point: Harry is voluntarily walking towards his death.
I have to agree. I was quite surprised by the line. Not because of the swearing, but because it seemed very out of character for Mrs Weasly and also very muggle - so not only out of character for Mrs Weasly, but really for the whole wizarding world basically. I felt the same way about Ron "effing" everything....where did that come from? Again very "our" world, not theirs.
"Too muggle". Perhaps that's why I dislike the line so much. Throughout the book, JKR has used her own invented wizard vocabulary, and that has occasionally included a wizard-variety of swearing; most notably, "mudblood"; also the characters have frequently sworn by various parts of Merlin's anatomy or clothing: "Merlin's beard!" or "Merlin's pants!" Even Ron's use of "effing", which seems to be a new addition for book 7, is a softer version of what we know he means. So that's why it's so startling and ugly when Mrs. Weasley uses muggle profanity. One wonders how she even knows the word -- it doesn't seem to be used in their world.
And maybe it's just me but I think desperation in a moment like that seems more real than trying to be classy about it. You're talking about a woman who has murdered and tortured many innocent people and would do it again without a second thought...if she were threatening my child AND taunting me about the death of another I would have screamed at her a lot worse than Mrs.Weasley did.
I our real world, sure. But we're talking about HER world.
Furthermore, look at other death scenes: Lily Potter certainly was in an equally horrible situation. Sirius realized that he was falling through the portal. Yet neither of them turned potty-mouth in the process -- and, referring to my previous comment -- if it'd been wizard swearing, it wouldn't have bothered me.
As it was a childrens' novel, I was pretty sure that the main trio would live. It seemed unlikely that she would have killed any of them. I am a little surprised that she opted to kill off both Lupin and Tonks - I'm with those that said Tonks' first responsibility should have been to stay with her child. On a whole, Tonks' and Lupin's death did feel "thrown" in there . . . The only think I was a little dissapointed was that trio opted not to go back to school for their 7th year. I understand for sake of the story that they couldn't be in school during the year, but as this is a childrens book it was sad to see that finishing one's education isn't important. Just a comment by one of they indicating that they would go back after defeating Voldemort or something along those lines would have been nice.
I expected Lupin to die -- I mean everyone else whose name appears on the Maurauder's Map is dead. And once he came to Bill's house to announce the birth of the baby and asked Harry to be godfather, well, I figured he'd definitely be dying by the end of the book! You know the literature rules: Never stop and have a sappy, emotional scene just before a big fight --it's a sure sign that one of you won't be making it to the end! The archetype is well established!
I was also disappointed that there wasn't some little indication that they're going back to school the following year; maybe Professor McG (whom I suppose will become new headmistress) could've invited them back for the next year. Of course, Fred and George set a precident by leaving school a year early --and they've gone on to be successful businessmen -- so we see that completing one's education isn't totally necessary in the wizarding world. On the other hand, if their goal is still to become aurors, then we know they need a great deal of education.
I was most upset by Dobby's death followed by Fred. I was so glad Hagrid didn't die.
Oh, Dobby's death was horrible. I didn't see it coming at all, and then he died so heroically.
I'm still not sure Snape ever LIKED Potter. I think the "Always" referred to him still loving Lily . . . His him, and shouting seem so angry, not loving towards Potter. I think he means he still loves LILY and is doing it only for her.
I took that line to mean that he'd cared for Harry "always" -- as in, he cared for him the moment he walked into Hogwarts, and he was tough on him because he knew that he was capable of so much. But now that you've pointed this out . . . I think you're right: he meant that he'd never stopped caring for Lily. After the underpants scene, I figured he'd had a thing for Lily, but I never would've believed it went all the way back to childhood and that he's the one who first told her the secrets of the wizard world!
I do wish that the life-debt Wormtail owed Harry would have been a little more dramatic. I also wish that Kreacher would have had a little more of a role in the final book.
I think these two plotlines were victims of space. Wormtail's story probably could've been more elaborate, but I had the feeling that JKR realized she was running out of time and had to kill him off quickly. He had to die, though, sneaky little traitor.
What I would really like to know now is who got the reprieve. JK Rowling said that originally someone was supposed to die, but got a reprieve and two others died instead of that person.
My guess is that it was "supposed to be" Hagrid who died. I mean, twice I thought he was dead: after falling off that motorbike and in the spider scene. And WHY would Voldemorte have killed everyone else, but tied Hagrid up to a tree? I think it's because JKR knew she'd have to get Harry's "dead body" back to the castle. Sure, Voldemorte could've levitated it back magically, but it's more touching to have Hagrid -- the man who brought him to the castle as an 11-year old boy -- carry him.
I'd figured Hagrid was going to die. Sure, he's a bit of a bumbler and lots of people are against him, but he's one of the emotional centers of the book -- he's always been there for Harry. I figured he was going to die, and his death would be a rallying point for Harry and Hermione especially.
I'd been wondering where the name Hugo came from! All of the other names seemed to fit (I figured Rose was just to go with Lily), but Hugo seemed a bit out of nowhere.
JKR obviously likes to use flowers for girls' names: Lily, Petunia, Pansy, Fleur . . . so Rose isn't a stretch for her. I wonder if Hugo might be a nod to someone in her personal life.
3. Draco Malfoy did not do enough to avoid a life sentence in prision. That fact that he had an 11 year old son 19 years later, he probably did no time.
Interesting thought. We assume that Kingsley'll become permanant Minister of Magic, and he doesn't strike me as the forgiving type! I'd say his mother did more at the end -- lying straight to the Dark Lord's face -- than he did. And since he's legally of age, he cannot rely upon his youth to avoid a sentence. It'd be interesting to know more about that!
Rowling does three things very well: she gives us very believable characters, she creates a marvelous world for them to exist in, and can write very good individual scenes. But the way she puts her books together has always been her weakest point
I think that's a fair description!
I thought one of their kids would be named Fred. Heck, maybe they were just names JKR liked.
If we knew about George's children, I'm sure there'd be a Fred in there!
I did like how the malfoys, sitting in the great hall at the end.
I think it's probably realistic though. I mean, with all that's going on, who has time for a couple Death Eaters turned good? They have made no friends, and it would be inappropriate for them to try to console those who've lost loved ones. I'm sure they were stripped of their mansion and wealth; let's pretend that the Ministry took all the Death Eater's wealth and gave it to the victims of Voldemorte and the orphans they left behind.
I agree about Hagrid getting a reprieve. When he was carried off by the spiders I thought he was a goner. No real explanation of how he escaped them. Maybe the spiders were just glad to see him? . . . I can still see a sequel, of sorts. As the children of Harry, Draco, etc., were boarding the train I thought "Hmm, might be a book in following the kids". What if it turned out that Vordemort left a child behind, intent on getting even with Harry through his children? Ah well.
Maybe the spiders weren't attacking him -- they were taking him out of danger. After all, some time back, they told us that they wouldn't attack Hagrid out of respect for what he'd done for Aragog. Of course, that doesn't explain how he ended up with Voldemorte tied to a tree later.
No, I don't want to see more books. As wonderful as these books are, the story is finished. To try to add to it would be second-rate and would denegrate these books. Has anyone read the "new" Little House books? Yuck!
Here is a question. Why have seven Harry's, and not just change Harry into someone else? I first thought it was becuase of underaged magic, but they all took the potion right there on Privat Drive anyway.
I don't think drinking of potions is detectable. But spells "show up" on the Trace.
And I have one question: WHERE'S CHARLIE? Was he even mentioned in the book? I think he was at the wedding, but there's no way he would've allowed the fight at the end to go on without him. He could've brought dragons!
That was sure pulling the rabbit out of the hat.
I was glad Harry finally got a family and I don't care how cheesy it was.
