OK,

I have some questions, and thanks Tasha for the link to the forum discussing the book.

When Harry has a trace still on before his birthday, why can't they detect that he is at the Burrow? Is there some sort of something else there? If so, then why couldn't the team of aurors and helpers put this same cloak over Harry's house in Little Whinging, then do spells from there?

Also... I don't think the little girl was being raped at all. It just says the boys wanted to make her do the magic again, then they got rough with her. It doesn't say they raped her, or even implied it. I never would have thought that from reading it. Although, I don't know what J.K. ROwling intended, rape seems a bit extreme.

And how come there is no real closure with some things like Professor Umbridge or the dragon that flies off from the Bank. Luna seems to fade into oblivion again too.

Also, when did the ministry put the trace on Voldemort's name? Harry was spewing it quite a bit in the early part of the book.

I'm sure I will have more q's...

"Harry Potter- Book 7- Without the Spoilers!!"

lol I just clicked on this thread and thought it actually meant there were no spoilers. For stupid people like me though, perhaps you can change the title to "Harry Potter- Book 7- Without the Spoiler TAGS" ? I finished the book already, so that's not a worry. Just thought this should be mentioned.

Done it! :) Now don't we love msn and other IM's? lol.

Enjoy your crazy Harry Potter obsessions.. :razz:

When Harry has a trace still on before his birthday, why can't they detect that he is at the Burrow?


they cant detect that he is at the burrow because no one was using magic around him and he himself wasnt using magic

Changed the thread title again so there should be no confusion. :)

Given the content of this thread, I reckon this thread is gonna remain unmoderated for at least the next couple of days. lol

/me dashes out again before he reads something he shouldn't.

i stand by the rape bit.

they don't just attack her . .

its implied that it's much worse than that.

they cant detect that he is at the burrow because no one was using magic around him and he himself wasnt using magic

They are doing magic around him... When Madam Delacour shows up it even says she knew lots of household spells and cleaned the oven up really well.

And Hermione says that she has been doing lots of tricky spells and charms to prepare for their trip.

Now that I think about it, in one of the earlier books Harry used "lumos" to light his wand to read his books at night at his aunt and uncle's house. Why didn't the trace detect that?

because your not supposed too think too much about it. . .

I think any book/series will be subject to continuity errors if examined closely enough. It's true of all pieces of writing. They're also open to many different interpretations by many different people. Such is the joy of literature. :biggrin: This thread is turning into quite the lit crit thread.. with.. 'I think this because....' etc.. I think it's great. I haven't read the book myself yet, but I'm enjoying reading what you guys write.

You haven't read it yet?
STAY OUT OF THE THREAD!!

Someone's gonna give the ending away in a minute Buffs, just for you!

xD

http://img262.imageshack.us/img262/2685/1184994438542yj9vi4.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

i know the page numbers are a bit wrong, but the rest is fine and you asked for it. .

(incase your wondering who judith priest is. . .i got this from another forum!).

^Holy fontsize batman! Had to go back and forth to read the whole thing!

I have a question about the book though. Why did Harry say the Elder Wand chose Malfoy as his master originally?

Dumbledore intended the Elder Wand's master to be Snape, but since Snape didn't exactly overpower Dumbledore because Dumbledore had asked Snape to kill him, when Draco disarmed Dumbledore, Draco became the master of the Elder Wand. Draco was the only one who had actually overpowered Dumbledore.

Plus, I don't believe that the book was implying that Ariana got raped. It just says that the Muggle boys got angry when she couldn't duplicate the trick they had seen before.

Dumbledore intended the Elder Wand's master to be Snape, but since Snape didn't exactly overpower Dumbledore because Dumbledore had asked Snape to kill him, when Draco disarmed Dumbledore, Draco became the master of the Elder Wand. Draco was the only one who had actually overpowered Dumbledore.

Plus, I don't believe that the book was implying that Ariana got raped. It just says that the Muggle boys got angry when she couldn't duplicate the trick they had seen before.

Ah thank you for the explanation! And I agree on the Ariana thing. Don't think J.K. Rowling implied that Ariana was raped at all, seeing as all Rowling wrote was that "they (muggle boys) got a bit carried away."

Finished! Finished! Like, just now!

Oh that was good. I KNEW Snape was good, I knew it! I thought he would be in love with Lily too, but I thought he might have made an Unbreakable Vow with Dumbldore or something and that's why Dumbledore still trusted him.

I don't think the boys raped Ariana either, from what I understood they were pre-teens anyhow.

I cried when Dobby and Hedwig died, how sad am I?

Oh, and was there anyone who didn't think Harry was another Horcrux? I actually thought Nagini wouldn't be one.

There were some things I remember reading that Rowling had said which didn't seem to come up in the book. One was about a character suddenly being able to do magic late in life. I thought it might refer to Filch, but nothing seemed to materialise. Edited out, perhaps?

Oh, I cried when Percy came back too.

I think the things about the cats was that all three of them weren't really cats, but rather creatures that were mentioned in 'Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them' the name of which escapes me. I remember Sirius saying that Crookshanks was the most intelligent of his kind he had ever met... meaning those creatures. Again, it wasn't really explained in the book. I think a lot got cut out.

EDIT: Oh, I found the name of them, Kneazles.

EDIT 2: OK one more edit and then I really have to do some work.

I just read 2 theories about who can do magic later in life. One said it was Dudley Dursley, and the magic referred to was Dumbledore's favorite - love.
The other said that it was Merope, from book 6, Voldemort's mother. Apparently JK said that before book 6 was published? Not sure, but some people think it's her.

EDIT 3: Someone else post and then I can stop editing!

I also just read another theory that it was Ted Tonks - but I think he was muggle-born rather than just a muggle.

I heard that the person who was supposed to show magic later in life just got cut out.

And Ted Tonks was a Muggleborn, it says so in Book 5.

I was really surprised at the accuracy of Mugglenet - the staff got together, wrote a book on things they thought would happen in Harry Potter 7, and their main theories were this: Harry is a horcrux, Harry will live, Snape is good. They got three out of three, that's pretty impressive.

what harry does next. . .

http://i83.photobucket.com/albums/j293/dereksmalls5/phoenixorder.jpg

just finished the book... the last 300 pages stressed me out, made me laugh, and frustrated me.. and then i was just happy

I'm reading it again... sigh!

again?!

i lent it to my brother, he's reading it now.. he kept yelling at me when i wanted to talk about what was happening

AHAHAHA, YES! ROWLING GOES INTO MORE DETAIL ABOUT WHAT HAPPENS IN EACH CHARACTER'S LIFE!

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19959323/

AHAHAHA, YES! ROWLING GOES INTO MORE DETAIL ABOUT WHAT HAPPENS IN EACH CHARACTER'S LIFE!

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19959323/

Wow, can't believe she gave more details! But I think some of them were kind of predictable (Harry and Ron, Luna, Hogwarts).

And I'd just like to say what was Rowling thinking when she gave those children said names? Albus Severus Potter?! Not to be unappreciative or anything (afterall, this was a great series) but she could of made the name a little less cheesy and make it sound better... those names don't string well in my opinion.

so mcgonagal is the new headmaster? (or however her name is spelled i cant remember)

Finished the book this morning. Didn't get it until late friday. Well worth the read.

My thoughts on the issues:

- I never doubted for a second that snape was good, it was evident he wanted to be in a room with harry's mom alone, with barry white playing in the background.

- Arianna is not raped. They just beat the crap out of her. They're talking about children beating up a girl, not teenagers or adults. But i guess that's up to the reader to interpret.

- The shrieking thing in king's cross is the piece of voldemort's soul that was in harry's body. Once harry is dead, his soul and the bit from voldemort's separate and are left in the same limbo. I remain doubtful as how to harry came back to life, if anybody would clear that up for me? I'll re-read it anyway.

- McGonnagal's not the headmaster? So who is? The interview says someone entirely new. I guess we'll never know.

- The running away hiding in the forest in the tent chapters bored me to no end.

- Since there's no more death eaters (?), what are Aurors good for now?
*Evil will eventually crop up again, dark magic is there for someone to find, use and obsess about.

I think you answered your penultimate question in your last statement. The aurors are dark wizard catchers. The Death Eaters are not the only dark wizards.

Sorry, i meant for my last point to be the answer for the question, as that was brought up somewhere.

I'm also still a little confused about how Harry came back to life. It was something about Voldemort having Lily's blood inside him, which was why in Book 4, after Harry told Dumbeldore that, Dumbledore got some kind of manic happy gleam in his eyes which led some readers to believe that he was evil.

Okay. JKR goes into much much more detail about the rest of the characters' lives. http://mugglenet.com/app/news/full_story/1156

Albus Severus Potter?!
Nah, they don't string well, but as my sister pointed out, the initials spell 'ASP,' a type of snake.
Don't know if there's any relevance?

- The shrieking thing in king's cross is the piece of voldemort's soul that was in harry's body. Once harry is dead, his soul and the bit from voldemort's separate and are left in the same limbo. I remain doubtful as how to harry came back to life, if anybody would clear that up for me? I'll re-read it anyway.
I think it was in his mind really.. and it seemed to me when reading that he came back to life because he was prepared to die.. but that makes no sense, because then everyone could go to a duel like "Oh, I'm going to die" and then just come back again.
I think it was because the horcrux in him had to be killed before he could be. I'm not sure.

Okay. JKR goes into much much more detail about the rest of the characters' lives. http://mugglenet.com/app/news/full_story/1156
Thankyou for these links - much appreciated!

Finished this last week when I finally got it off the missus... heh.

My thoughts in a nutshell:

Good book. Waaaaay better than the last one. Which was rubbish. Though I do have a couple of niggling moans:

1. Middle was a bit padded out: Go to a wood, set up some charms, have a fight, disapparate - and reappear in a wood. Set up some charms, have a fight, move on to next wood... etc etc. That's what it felt like for a bit to me.

2. JK seems to have drawn her inspiration from an ancient book you may have heard of called the Bible... Good old harry gaveth of his live that we might live, and thereby protected the people he died for from the evils that threatened them. Jesus, anyone? Then he rose again.

Ok, so Jesus isn't reported to have gone on and raised a family, but still... the links are there aren't they? The bit about Voldemorts magic not being effective after Harry gave his life smacked of biblicalness to me anyway.

Ive never read a single harry book and i dont think i ever will.
Unless every other book vanishes from our orbit, i love to read i read every day so if it was the only books left, well id have to i suppose.
They have just never intested me.:embarrassed:

Finished this last week when I finally got it off the missus... heh.

My thoughts in a nutshell:

Good book. Waaaaay better than the last one. Which was rubbish. Though I do have a couple of niggling moans:

1. Middle was a bit padded out: Go to a wood, set up some charms, have a fight, disapparate - and reappear in a wood. Set up some charms, have a fight, move on to next wood... etc etc. That's what it felt like for a bit to me.

2. JK seems to have drawn her inspiration from an ancient book you may have heard of called the Bible... Good old harry gaveth of his live that we might live, and thereby protected the people he died for from the evils that threatened them. Jesus, anyone? Then he rose again.

Ok, so Jesus isn't reported to have gone on and raised a family, but still... the links are there aren't they? The bit about Voldemorts magic not being effective after Harry gave his life smacked of biblicalness to me anyway.

Quite agree with you there Ches! I read this on my holiday (only took a few days) and it was much better than the Half Blood Prince. It tied up a few loose ends, but the ending left far too many questions and what ifs, and what abouts (if you catch my drift). However, the link provided further up the thread provides some answers to the questions I had.

Now... about your theory regarding Jesus. You have read the Da Vinci Code!?? :razz: Interesting thought process that you have there though. I never clocked on to the similarities before now.

/me ponders whether we should file a lawsuit for plagurism :razz:

I'm re-reading book 6 because there's a TON of stuff i couldn't remember that came up in book 7 that i was unsure about. Like Ginny for example, i'm so daft that i had forgotten that Ginny was a love interest of Harry's. And the horcruxes, how many and so on.

BTW, how are we sure there's no more horcruxes?

.. We're sure there aren't any more horcruxes because Voldy's dead.

If you mean at the end of book six, how are we sure there's no more horcruxes? There's no way of knowing for sure.

.. We're sure there aren't any more horcruxes because Voldy's dead.

Yeah but it doesn't make sense in my head. Didn't voldemort come to be half-alive in the back of quirrel's head through a horcrux? Because he was killed when trying to kill baby harry right? So if he's dead one time and the horcruxes are a way to come back to life, he could still come back if these guys didn't actually take care of all the horcruxes. What if there's some left in albania or something?

No, he never died. Horcruxes are NOT a way of coming back to life. Horcruxes are when you split your soul into pieces. So he had one piece of soul inside him, and that piece of soul 'died' when he tried to kill Harry. He still had other horcruxes, other pieces of soul, so he was able to stay alive. He had the ability to inhabit another creature's body for a time, but the creature usually died very quickly once he started inhabiting them. He got on Quirrell's head by this gift of inhabitation, I think, then Quirrell drank unicorn blood for him, which strengthened him.

I don't think that Voldy had any more horcruxes (I keep wanting to say horcri...) because when he died in Book 7, his body was there, right? The night he tried to kill Harry, he just disappeared. Plus, the '19 years later' chapter is supposed to get rid of all your doubts that Voldy will come back. Plus, JKR says he's dead.

Thanks for that gracie, but still, was the bit of soul inhabiting quirrel's head from a horcrux? I mean, it has to be right? The piece of soul in his body died the night he tried to kill baby harry, so the only remaining bits are in the devices. I don't think that's ever covered in any of the books...

The way I read about horcuxeseses, it seemed they had to physically be created by 'ripping your soul into bits' or something along those lines, then putting them into something. Simple really...

They were created intentionally though, apart from the Harrycrux. Quirrel would have been taken over later on, and this would be more of your common or garden possession than a horcrux I would think, when MouldyVoldy had had some Weetabix. It didn't kill him completely in his baby harry meeting, it just weakened him a lot. I think that's in the books somewhere. The first one, maybe.

Crap. I dont remember any of that!

I decided not to care, i'm not reading the entire series again.

Horcruxes aren't talked about at all before the sixth book.

Rowling made all the money she had ever dreamt of and was getting tired of the books. She had to end the series in the seventh book. She had to kill either Voldy or Harry.. in a way that doesn't conflict with the books already published.

Enter Horcruxes, the Deus ex machina (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deus_ex_machina) that saves the day for her.

Moreover, she killed the Marvolo's Diary with a tooth from the damned Basilisk. But that is locked away in Hogwart's basement... how does she get them to kill the others.. Oh, really simple actually, bring in another Deux ex machina. Get snape to give them the sword of Gryffindor.

What a sad life Snape lived! lmao@snape's patronus being a Doe. Now one must remember that Lily's patronus was a doe. James' was a stag. Snap was really gay and was secretly in love with James. Not lily :smile:

At one point before reading the last book, I wanted to go back and re-read the entire series. but after reading the seventh, which seems to me like just a desperate attempt to get it over with, I can't be bothered anymore!

R

I couldn't disagree more! I guessed that Snape was in love with Lily long before the final book, and it was always deliberately ambiguous as to whether Snape was good or bad, so these things were always something that were going to come into play at the end, stringing us along until she finally revealed them.

As for the Horcruxes being deus ex machina, I think they were planned from very early on, if not from the very start. The diary, the snake, Voldemort being half/half, Harry himself... as well as introducing the ideas of the separate houses, their ghosts, their histories etc, all these things were put in place and established early on to make it possible for her to introduce the horcruxes later.

I DO think some things were rushed in the final book, or not expanded on as much as some would have liked, but I think mostly it was all very well planned and came together in a believable way.

I don't think you can say she was tired of the book, how could you know that? It's a shame you didn't like the last book, I thought it was pretty good.

I don't think you can say she was tired of the book, how could you know that? It's a shame you didn't like the last book, I thought it was pretty good.


And I couldn't disagree more with THAT statement! How dare you suggest that Book 7 was "pretty good"! :eek: It was wonderful! :razz:

But I do agree with other statements said! Like Vik, I believe this story was well plotted throughout the whole series. Book 7 was rushed in some places and we do not find out what happened to other prominent characters (such as Hagrid, Luna and even Mrs Weasley). As for alleging that Snape was gay! Poppycock! lol

Moreover, she killed the Marvolo's Diary with a tooth from the damned Basilisk. But that is locked away in Hogwart's basement... how does she get them to kill the others.. Oh, really simple actually, bring in another Deux ex machina. Get snape to give them the sword of Gryffindor.


Or just so happened that in the room of hidden things (a.k.a. room of requirement), Crabbe (or was it Goyle?) casts this Fiendfyre or whatever and WHOA LOOK OUT! that stuff kills horcruxes. I thought that was rather cheap.

Honestly, she could have destroyed that Horcrux in a number of ways - the Basilisk teeth for example. I think one of the reasons she chose to do that one in that way was because it would look quite thrilling in the movie trailer.

Call my cynical if you like, but that must be in her head once she knew they were all going to be turned into films. Don't get me wrong, I quite enjoyed that in the book, but I'd be prepared to bet that Harry and Co. whizzing along in front of an inferno will feature quite heavily in the trailer!

I couldn't disagree more! I guessed that Snape was in love with Lily long before the final book, and it was always deliberately ambiguous as to whether Snape was good or bad, so these things were always something that were going to come into play at the end, stringing us along until she finally revealed them.

As for the Horcruxes being deus ex machina, I think they were planned from very early on, if not from the very start. The diary, the snake, Voldemort being half/half, Harry himself... as well as introducing the ideas of the separate houses, their ghosts, their histories etc, all these things were put in place and established early on to make it possible for her to introduce the horcruxes later.

I DO think some things were rushed in the final book, or not expanded on as much as some would have liked, but I think mostly it was all very well planned and came together in a believable way.

I don't think you can say she was tired of the book, how could you know that? It's a shame you didn't like the last book, I thought it was pretty good.

I completely agree. It must have all been planned from the beginning - there's no way she could have come up with something in the last few years that fitted in with everything she'd already written.

Or just so happened that in the room of hidden things (a.k.a. room of requirement), Crabbe (or was it Goyle?) casts this Fiendfyre or whatever and WHOA LOOK OUT! that stuff kills horcruxes. I thought that was rather cheap.

Honestly, she could have destroyed that Horcrux in a number of ways - the Basilisk teeth for example. I think one of the reasons she chose to do that one in that way was because it would look quite thrilling in the movie trailer.

Call my cynical if you like, but that must be in her head once she knew they were all going to be turned into films. Don't get me wrong, I quite enjoyed that in the book, but I'd be prepared to bet that Harry and Co. whizzing along in front of an inferno will feature quite heavily in the trailer!

I agree with both of you here. It was a bit of a weird way to kill off that horcrux, I think, and even stranger that when Hermione was explaining how they could be destroyed, she left that part out because she thought they wouldn't be able to do it, or something like that.

Definitely agree about the movie thing, although I hadn't thought of that before. Maybe it was a bit of a subconscious decision, but yeah, I think, like you said, it'll probably feature in the trailer.
And fair enough. It would look good on screen.

I think one of the reasons she chose to do that one in that way was because it would look quite thrilling in the movie trailer.
It would look good on screen.

Agreed. How cool would it look to see CGI fiery animals hunting!?

/me waits anxiously for movie 6 and 7

The final battle is going to look kick ass on screen.

I don't think you can say she was tired of the book, how could you know that?

How could you know she wasn't ? please Vik, I'm entitled to an opinion :twisted:

Or just so happened that in the room of hidden things (a.k.a. room of requirement), Crabbe (or was it Goyle?) casts this Fiendfyre or whatever and WHOA LOOK OUT! that stuff kills horcruxes. I thought that was rather cheap.

somebody please explain to me, how come the clever clever Hermione didn't cast the Fiendfyre when they had the locket earlier and didn't have the sword yet, and let the damn locket sour things between them? I believe it is because Fiendfyre wasn't invented till the last few chapters, yet another deux ex machina :)
what makes this particularly out of place is the person who casts this advanced spell. Both Crabbe and Goyle were stupid. until now


please dont get me wrong, I've enjoyed reading all the books, just that in the end, the series does not feel like a masterpiece that fits well (like LOTR did). Its more like the Matrix trilogy.. where a promising fresh story line ends up going nowhere in particular.

Maybe because it's really uncontrollable? Just to get rid of the locket like that would have destroyed loads of other stuff as well. Plus if they'd killed them all in the same way, it would have been really really dull :|

somebody please explain to me, how come the clever clever Hermione didn't cast the Fiendfyre when they had the locket earlier and didn't have the sword yet, and let the damn locket sour things between them? I believe it is because Fiendfyre wasn't invented till the last few chapters, yet another deux ex machina :)


Ah but you see, fiendfyre is dark magic. Hermione wouldn't know such magic yet, as she hadn't studied it that much. And yeah, mighty deus ex machina, and stylish one too.