HARRY POTTER & THE DEATHLY HALLOWS - thoughts (SPOILERS!!) (1 Viewer)

[karoooh]

You're right. I think Narcissa initially was only following family expectations in marrying Lucius, and she was never as much into the whole Death Eater thing, but suffered it as a good pure-blooded wife should. But I also think that Narcissa and Lucius really did grow to love each other, despite what a lot of fic says (Cassandra Claire, I'm looking at you!)

I agree too, but I still like the Trilogy because alot of the characters were developed in a much better manner than they were in DH.

 

[townie]

What are you after? I can link you to a lot of good stuff.

i dunno really, back stories mebbe

i just realised as well, btw, we never really found out what the first war was like, did we? i reckon that would be interesting

 

[Ennaybur]

lol just finished.

kind of shit if you ask me

-poorly written
-cliches
-no character development
-no substance to the deaths etc (ie rushed)
-weak/blatant flashbacks that just explain the story
-fucking terrible ending "LOL ILL JUST PAIR THEM UP K"

I mean.. the fact they're still friens since 11 is stretching it imo - having them close and even married at like 40 is bs

edit: and their use of unforgivable curses

 

[Kujah]

And why did Voldemort let Harry enter into his thoughts and views. Didn't he close that in HBP?

 

[jb_nc]

lol just finished.

kind of shit if you ask me

-poorly written
-cliches
-no character development
-no substance to the deaths etc (ie rushed)
-weak/blatant flashbacks that just explain the story
-fucking terrible ending "LOL ILL JUST PAIR THEM UP K"

I mean.. the fact they're still friens since 11 is stretching it imo - having them close and even married at like 40 is bs

A proper reply to all these points is that it's a childrens book.

 

[Ennaybur]

I've read children's books that are far better written than this.

 

[jb_nc]

I've read children's books that are far better written than this.

No shit, Dr Seuss was much better.

 

[Ennaybur]

true becky. I just dont understand why she didnt take more time to write it or something... well I guess she doens't need to.

 

[Nebuchanezzar]

Well I was pretty impressed.

- Blatant anti-Slytherin bias (see: all of Slytherin not fighting, Ron talking about Scorpius Malfoy in the end)

YOU'RE MISSING THE BLOODY POINT!

There's only an anti-Slytherin bias because all of the evil, or non-caring wizards are grouped together. It's not as if a bunch of randoms are shoved into a house, and everyone becomes biased against them, it's that the people put in Slytherin are evil, non-caring wizards to begin with! It's as simple as that. For every 3 wizards out there who would not stoop to any means to acheive their ends (survival), there's one wizard who would. Sounds about accurate, sounds fair. You're trying to say that everyone hates Slytherins for no reason, when there's a perfectly good reason! Everyone who is put into Slytherin, bar a few shining examples (Snape, Slughorn) is a complete, utter, selfish asshole.

I could never imagine her swearing in front of the kids)

OH HEAVENS NO!

- "Accio Hagrid" (overuse of "Accio" in general, too.)

Who would have bloody well thought that a wizard would make use of a vastly useful spell? WHO WOULD HAVE THOUGHT?

- Severus' death being essentially meaningless (I wrote about this a bit earlier)

Yes, well, I was a little dissapointed he didn't appear more heroic. But the more I look at it, the more sensible it all seems to have Snape die in a profoundly unspectacular fashion (albeit giving a spectacularly powerful weapon to harry)

- Plot holes galore

Explain

- Contradictions in terms (Hermione and the memory charm on her parents, then claiming not to have ever performed one in the scene with the Death Eaters later)

Explain

- Why do we never hear about Hermione's parents in the whole series?

We did, but you didn't hear more about them because they are unimportant.

EDIT: You're right, the Unforgivables thing as well. Wtf.

I think it's important to remember that only Imperio, and crucio were used, albeit in dire, dire situations to acheive (dare I say it), a greater good, and in the case of the cruciatus curse, on people that were deserving of it moreso than the law which forbids it. That is to say, it was an allowable exception to the rule that acheived a far greater purpose and ends than any misgivings about using it could have, if you get what i mean. I guess I'm trying to say, it's not a serious matter. Also, the killing curse, by far a much more unforgivable curse, was not used by anyone good. It's not as if the soul is torn apart by use of the cruciatus or imperius curse, they're only unforgivable given the power and torment which they can potentially unleash - which never happened via the use of them by harry.

- If Harry was allegedly dead, and even Narcissa knew he was alive, how did the Dark Lord not know?

Perhaps she didn't, and she was using it as a last resort? That seems probable. Consider also that Voldemort had just done a massively powerful curse on harry, he probably fainted, he was elated in the death he just caused. I think it's fairly obvious that his guard would have been let down, and dumbledore had shown us time and time again that he has a bad habit of doing that.

- Whatever happened to Neville's role in the prophecy?

...

You're deluded.

 

[jb_nc]

i am lollin so hard at these HP livejournal nerds

 

[Nebuchanezzar]

No, that's the whole point. You never see any evil Ravenclaws, or Hufflepuffs, or God forbid, Gryffindors. It's always Slytherins, and even when they're doing something good they appear evil, or cowardly.

YES! That's the point! You don't see any of that behaviour from the other wizards because they weren't placed in Slytherin. They were not assigned to Slytherin, because they didn't have that, dare I say it, evil streak! It's hardly as if you don't see them ever see Slytherins receive credit for what they did. From what I recall, Snape was given next to hero status by Harry, and I assume the entire wizarding world, after realising what he'd done, and what he'ds gone through. Convinient how you forget that though...

You forget that Harry was almost placed in Slytherin, and only because of hearing about how bad it is from Ron he chose not to.[/quite]

Moot point. Even so, Harry chose not to go into the house that had evil, or a non-caring nature assigned to it. He selected, and the sorting hat agreed, that he was not to be a part of Slytherin. You cannot bring this up as an excuse. Perhaps you ought to read the first, second, fifth and sixth books again?

Now, if Slytherins have various prejudices, and these are so bad, why is Ron not called out on his prejudice against Slytherins... who are not all bad. Oh no - being ambitious is a bad thing! Heavens forbid, for example, someone like Hermione is ambitious.

What on earth does this have to do with anything? Yes, Ron has prejudices but he'd never kill, harm, or abandon anyone for them, as Slytherins have a bad habit of doing. Yeah, Slytherins have ambition over all else, but it so happens that your shining examples place a bit more importance on other traits to their character.

You forget that for the most part, all wizards would show traits common to each house (bravery, intelligence, loyalty and ambition). For example, Hermione, a bloody Gryffindor, shows those things. One could argue that even a Bellatrix Lestrange shows these things - I'm not a fan of her but she shows bravery in fighting, she's reasonably intelligent, she's loyal to the Dark Lord and she aspires to be the greatest in his circle.

Yes, that's true. Every wizard does show a little of each of those properties. But as I just said, Slytherins, above all else tend to show a bit more "ambition" to acheive their goal. Perhaps ambition is just a way of glossing over what Slytherin is all about though...the books, which are much better evidence than what your deluded mind points towards, tend to show that they have a little more to them than "ambition".

No, it doesn't. After all the 'I'm not a coward!' stuff in Half Blood Prince he doesn't get the spectacular death, or even the redemption just prior to it. He dies with everyone thinking he's still evil. That's not fair. Severus deserved better.

And he got better, Harry cleared his name. Moving on...

Early on in the piece, Hermione says she got rid of her parents by modifying their memories (i.e. by Obliviating them) to make them forget they ever had a daughter, and to make them think they wanted to move to Australia.

Later on, Hermione claims she'd never performed a memory charm before, but she "knew the theory".

That's a contradiction in terms, is it not? It's sloppy editing.

I was just discussing this before with someone on MSN. It needs a re-read. From what I can recall, Hermione modified the memories of her parents, and then confessed to Harry that she wasn't sure she did a good job. Later on, she said as you said, when in haste and then simply obliviated the memories of the death eaters. I think its acceptable for her to make such mistakes when in a rush, but it does need a re-read. Either way, it's hardly a gaping plot hole that had much of an impact upon anything. Yeah, maybe if Dobby had shown up celebrating at the end then you could have a whinge, but atm you're making a mountain out of a molehill.

But yes, re-read. If there's a plothole then so be it I guess.

It depends on what you define as the 'greater good'. I just think it's entirely hypocritical.

Either way, as I said, these two curses are restricted by law not because they're pure evil, but because they're a hazard.

Okay, maybe the Dark Lord was slightly distracted, but it doesn't explain Narcissa. She seemed to know he was alive.

Nope.

I'll have a look at those websites later. I did enjoy the book, I thought it was fantastic. I do happen to think that you're a bit deluded in your obsession with Slytherin, I do think that you put too much emphasis on small matters, I do think that you're making the book out to be far worse than it actually was, and I do think you gloss certain parts over to make your point. It's a pity you didn't enjoy it, but Rowling did say that many wouldn't. That's a shame.

 

[$hiftyIceQueen]

And i agree on the Slytherin thing. The only people fighting were from the Order and DA. Severus died before anything 'huge' happened, and the other Slytherin professor well..it was only him. Then again since when has JKR liked Syltherin? look at Slytherins history, not every Slytherin turned out bad but she made it out in the end that they pretty much were either bad, or tried to save themselves [Malfoys]. Then again JKR doesn't like slytherin and said her fav house is Gryffindor so i wouldn't have expected much more. She even mentions that she loved writing Severus but wouldn't like to meet him!

The only person not from Slytherin who ended up being bad was Wormtail. I don't see how he is any better than any of the Slytherins. But what i find the weirdest, is why Slytherin still exists if they were pretty much the outcasts?!

Agreed with Malfoy, alot of people didn't like it. I hated the way it ended. Very stupid, we didn't even find out what they worked as!

 

[Taradar]

No, that's the whole point. You never see any evil Ravenclaws, or Hufflepuffs, or God forbid, Gryffindors. It's always Slytherins, and even when they're doing something good they appear evil, or cowardly. You forget that Harry was almost placed in Slytherin, and only because of hearing about how bad it is from Ron he chose not to. Now, if Slytherins have various prejudices, and these are so bad, why is Ron not called out on his prejudice against Slytherins... who are not all bad. Oh no - being ambitious is a bad thing! Heavens forbid, for example, someone like Hermione is ambitious.

No he didn't, no one forgets that Harry was almost placed in there, even harry at the end of the faily shitty epilogue. Now the fact is my friend....that no Slytherin isn't bad, but the only people who are bad are Slytherins. It's not bias, it's part of the definition.

Ok look, not all people who aren't dead are alive- the way they live their life and so on. But no one who is dead is alive.

Lets try a different analogy, to be a mammal means you have to be an animal yes? Yes...thank you...however to be an animal doesn't mean you have to exclusively be a mammal now does it? No...it doesn't. So lets think of being Slytherin as the same as being an animal. Evil the same as being a mammal- to be a Slytherin doesn't mean you're evil....(you don't have to be a mammal) but you have to be an animal to be a mammal- so you have to be in slytherin to be evil.

Now what you are doing is complaining about an aspect of evil people saying it's bias and what not- the fact is you just don't like the definition, you're one of those loonies who run around going "Oh that's so bias, why isn't a gryphondore evil?? Hmm why not!" I'm not saying they can't be...but aren't as far as we know. So in retrospect it'd be like going around saying "why can't a reptile be a mammal? WHY! WHY AREN'T BIRDS MAMMALS???? This is so bias against them...booohooo hooo"

[Note: it's more realistic to view the mammals as the 'good' slytherin as they are fewer in number]

You forget that for the most part, all wizards would show traits common to each house (bravery, intelligence, loyalty and ambition). For example, Hermione, a bloody Gryffindor, shows those things. One could argue that even a Bellatrix Lestrange shows these things - I'm not a fan of her but she shows bravery in fighting, she's reasonably intelligent, she's loyal to the Dark Lord and she aspires to be the greatest in his circle.

Wtf....yes ok everyone has these traits to a degree....but SOME MORE THAN OTHERS. Ok everyone has intelligence (maybe some have a factor of 0...such as you seem to be showing atm...but it doesn't mean the trait isn't there)

But accio Hagrid? Accio HAGRID! What the fuck, seriously? It's just sloppy.

No one's saying it'd work, seeing as he's half giant, and huge...But what would you do? What would you do given the situation? Keep your head and go "Ok this spell wont work, nor will this, or this...I'll try this" Or would you start doing the first things that come to your head? cause frankly...that's what I'd do, and what 99% of people INCLUDING Harry's character, would do. Thus why it is believable and well written.

No, it doesn't. After all the 'I'm not a coward!' stuff in Half Blood Prince he doesn't get the spectacular death, or even the redemption just prior to it. He dies with everyone thinking he's still evil. That's not fair. Severus deserved better.

Ok maybe he deserved better, we aren't going for a lovely tale where things are perfect here...we deserved to know the 100% truth about the veil, but the fact remains we're reading a book about something that the Author is trying to make realistic- REALISM my friend REALISM.

It doesn't matter whether we like it or not... or we think someone deserved better. Realistically, that's a good ending, it's what Voldemort would do in the end to achieve power. I can't say I wouldn't have liked Serverus to die defending Harry or something like that- but he stayed true to his character, and what Dumbledore had asked of him. Snape wasn't the type to run around going "look at my goodness and greatness- applaud me as I save you for this that and the other" that wasn't the person Snape was written to portray...why can't you accept this?


YES narcissa knew he was alive, but didn't tell the dark lord- she wanted to get back to her son as quickly as possible. She didn't care for deaths anymore, so long as she could find her son.

 

[sunjet]

harry also wakes up and it is all a dream, he had been in a coma for 7 years after being bitten by a snake in the zoo.


shit ending tbh... and the deathly hallows subplot was kind of all over the place. seemed way too rushed.

 

[$hiftyIceQueen]

About Severus. It wasn't a well written death, he DID deserve better as Malfoy said. He has been good for some time now, i don't see how it would have been out of character when he has saved Harry before. And he was also working with the Order, it would have been normal!

Whoever mentioned the Second Battle, on wiki it says the second battle of Hogwarts, wouldn't the first be what happened in the HBP?

Another thing that pissed me off was that Draco was on the platform in the final chapter, they mentioned his kid but what about a wife? I wanted to know who he married!!!!

 

[ViRtUaL]

worst book in the series. by far.

fukn hell, i swear after the 4th book she just ran out of ideas and started bullshitting her way to the end of the series. all this shit about horcruxes and hallows. wtf. she shoulodve just ignored all that shit and made harry train to be a gun wizard and then make him win against voldemort properly in a sick battle at the end. like win out of talent, not with all these fancy wands and shit.

 

[$hiftyIceQueen]

And while I don't like Remus or Tonks, their deaths were reduced to one line between them. I don't get what was with that.

As for Draco's wife, if we're going for insipid and predictable (like the rest of that blasted piece of shit) it'll have to be Pansy.

Oh yeah ...nah i love Remus and Tonks and their death was still shit and i didn't even feel sorry for them, man JKR just went right past it. But their poor kid, didn't even know his parents, and he hooked up with Bill and Fleur's daughter in the end

As for the Draco part, i don't want that! He didn't really like her so when JKR does the interveiw she may say he got married to someone else? Luna? ok yes im dreaming, he won't end up with her...

 

[Nebuchanezzar]

Thank you. Slytherin is merely JKR's punching bag, and regardless of the justification Nebuchanezzar gives it, I think making the members of Slytherin more than one-dimensional would have made the book better-rounded.

But what do I know? I'm not a screaming, cheering, Ron/Hermione-shipping, Gryffindor fangirl!

Slytherin is a punching bag because the people in it deserve to be punching bags! Why can you not understand this? It is the wizard who is bad, and the house is a collection of like minded wizards!

About Severus. It wasn't a well written death, he DID deserve better as Malfoy said. He has been good for some time now, i don't see how it would have been out of character when he has saved Harry before. And he was also working with the Order, it would have been normal!

I'm not entirely sure what you were seeking then. He was killed by Voldemort in a completely underwhelming manner. It was subdued, quiet, and as such it was far more realistic than any romanticised notion of a character death that yourself and malfoy seem to be begging for. Yes, Snape could have thrown himself in front of Harry or something like that, saving the day but that would have acheived very little. It would have looked absurd, it would have destroyed the entire character of Snape that had been built up over the years (face it, would he do that?), it would have destroyed a lot of the sympathy gained when we saw snape lying on the ground, giving his most prized memories to harry to help him defeat voldemort. Snapes actions were touching, loving, and I think anything less, or anything that you people are suggesting would have been infantile, at best.
UGH! It's a punching bag but only because those in it deserve to be punched! It is not the other way around! Why are you incapable of understanding this?

And while I don't like Remus or Tonks, their deaths were reduced to one line between them. I don't get what was with that.

Probably to emphasise the whole body count thing, no? It is told from a watching Harry perspective, so naturally once he's seen so many people die it wouldn't have such a massive impact.

 

[Kujah]

Did JKR say what would have happened if one possessed the Deathly Hallows? Was it just that they could conquer death?

 

[$hiftyIceQueen]

I'm not entirely sure what you were seeking then. He was killed by Voldemort in a completely underwhelming manner. It was subdued, quiet, and as such it was far more realistic than any romanticised notion of a character death that yourself and malfoy seem to be begging for. Yes, Snape could have thrown himself in front of Harry or something like that, saving the day but that would have acheived very little. It would have looked absurd, it would have destroyed the entire character of Snape that had been built up over the years (face it, would he do that?), it would have destroyed a lot of the sympathy gained when we saw snape lying on the ground, giving his most prized memories to harry to help him defeat voldemort. Snapes actions were touching, loving, and I think anything less, or anything that you people are suggesting would have been infantile, at best.
UGH! It's a punching bag but only because those in it deserve to be punched! It is not the other way around! Why are you incapable of understanding this?

See i don't really care about him jumping and protecting Harry, but he could have at least tried to protect himself. Like at least put up a fight. He could have tried something, and then still died, as long as he TRIED!

I hated the fact that he just went down, no fight no nothing, very un-Snapely

Probably to emphasise the whole body count thing, no? It is told from a watching Harry perspective, so naturally once he's seen so many people die it wouldn't have such a massive impact.

What about the rest of the characters? He couldn't think of them? There are soo many things that are stupid.

BTW i liked the book, but i thought it was rushed and i didnt like the ending..but the rest was cool