OT: Harry Potter & the Deathly Hallows

gregebowman · #1 July 29th, 2007, 07:05 PM

Spoiler alert!!

I just finished the book, and although I liked it, I didn't like the epilogue. It just 19 years into the future, and yes, for those who didn't know, Harry survives. But the epilogue only tells of Harry sending off his & Ginny's kids off to Hogwarts, and also Ron & Hermoine doing the same. There is no mention of what happened after Harry defeated Voldemort, or what he's been doing for a living for the past 19 years. I wish JK would have expanded on what Harry's been doing all those years. Maybe that's one of the subject's she write about if she ever goes back to writing another tale.

Atrocities · #2 July 29th, 2007, 07:50 PM

Who would have thought that some of the greatest epic literature of the last 100 years would all come from that little island nation. Lord of the Rings and now this Harry Potter nonsense.

My nephews just love it. I don't get it.

Baron Grazic · #3 July 29th, 2007, 10:08 PM

From what I have heard Gregebowman you are not the only one who dislikes the Epilogue. It would have been much better to leave the reader finish it the way they wanted.
Mind you - I've never read any HP books, this is just what a few people have told me.

dogscoff · #4 July 31st, 2007, 01:26 PM

Quote:

Atrocities said:
Who would have thought that some of the greatest epic literature of the last 100 years would all come from that little island nation.

LOL! You crack me up sometimes AT. This 'little island nation' does have something of a tradition when it comes to literature, and there's substantially more to 20th Century British literature than Rowling and Tolkien.

I've read the first Harry Potter book, and it was OK. I didn't really understand the hype, but then I'm not 9 years old. If it makes kids feel the way I did when I was a nipper reading the Narnia books, then the hype is justified.

IMHO a far better read (than Rowling, and probably even than Lewis) is Phillip Pulman's His Dark Materials Trilogy, which is another kids' series that appeals to adults, althouth admittedly HDM seems to be aiming a little older than Potter. Read the books now, so you can fully enjoy the big-screen cgi-fest that's hitting the cinemas soon.

I still think they should have cast Rik Mayall (in his Lord Flashheart persona) as Lord Asriel.

Baron Grazic · #5 July 31st, 2007, 10:16 PM

Quote:

dogscoff said:
I've read the first Harry Potter book, and it was OK. I didn't really understand the hype, but then I'm not 9 years old. If it makes kids feel the way I did when I was a nipper reading the Narnia books, then the hype is justified.

I just finished reading the Narnia books to my boys.

Will start on the Hobbit and LotRs soonish.
Have no intention of reading the Harry Potter books to them.

gregebowman · #6 August 1st, 2007, 01:24 PM

I didn't know about Harry Potter until about the 3rd book came out. This was before the first movie. I thought I'd give the first 3 books a try. I'm glad I did. Sure, it's not like the Lord of the Rings in its maturity. It's more like the Hobbit times 7. But I found myself getting hooked, and waiting every 2 or 3 years for the next book. And with each book, they were getting darker and longer. I think that's what I truly enjoyed about these books. They just got better as they went along. I just wanted some closure, however, at the end, and was not satisfied with the epilogue.

BlueTemplar · #7 August 14th, 2007, 10:45 PM

Just finished it. (Actually them, I was re-reading the whole serie for the past two weeks.)

It's not LotR where Frodo's sacrifice prevents him to live happily thereafter, defeating Voldemort was the way for Harry Potter to become whole again. It's normal therefore that it would end in "they lived happily after that". Caduceus is dead right on the family thing.

I was half-expecting it to end with either Ginny and Harry or Hermione and Ron dying though (and that actually makes the book better, because you're not as confident the heroes will survive at the end, and you care more for them).

Atrocities, I don't understand how you can tell that... England was always known for it's great literature. The book that has struck me the most is I think 1984. Actually I think that there are many references to it in the Deathly Hallows.
I don't really understand why do you call it "nonsense". It's not because it's overhyped that it's not a great book. And, as always, there's truth to the hype. And it's not like LotR didn't have the Frodo Lives! graffities On New York subway walls, or "Gandalf President!" badges....

Me too, I didn't like the first two that much when I first read them, because I was 16-17 when I read them, and I've grown up with the Hobbit and LotR (and Narnia a little bit).
But the Prisoner of Azkaban had something, and I really appreciated the Order of the Phoenix when I read it for the second time.

I think the Deathly Hallows is the best of them. It might be because it was directed to a more mature audience, or because I've found the Half-Blood Prince somewhat of a disappointment, but I think it's probably because the 6th and the 7th book should not be read separately. It's really different from the other books, you don't have the whole Hogwarts business that was getting a little bit annoying, more dark also, even if that would not alone make the book great.
It's actually a LOT better than I expected, I thought the serie peaked with tome 3, and was wearing away with the 6th.

I'm now even looking forward to re-read them all when the last film comes out, because of the last book... I was not sure before, that I would do it.

BTW, I fear the last film will not be good at all. I don't know how they will be compress all the book in even as much as 3 hours. LotR will have been a piece of cake compared to it.
I would have preferred to read them all before seeing the films, but we live in a different world...

Renegade 13 · #8 July 29th, 2007, 10:28 PM

I've read the first book, and while I can understand the appeal to those of a...younger age group, it isn't exactly what I'd call a literary masterpiece. Nowhere near as good as Lord of the Rings, etc. Then again, that's just the impression I got from the first book.

douglas · #9 July 30th, 2007, 01:20 AM

Quote:

Renegade 13 said:
I've read the first book, and while I can understand the appeal to those of a...younger age group, it isn't exactly what I'd call a literary masterpiece. Nowhere near as good as Lord of the Rings, etc. Then again, that's just the impression I got from the first book.

The first book is not enough to judge the entire series. Harry Potter and the Sorcerer/Philosopher's Stone is definitely a kids book. As the series goes on, it gets both darker and more mature with each book. I don't recall where I read it so I can't provide a reference, but ISTR that Rowling planned from the beginning to target each book for an audience the same age as Harry in that book, so the readership could grow up with the series as it was released. With each book set a year apart and there being seven of them, that's quite a difference from start to finish.

Renegade 13 · #10 July 30th, 2007, 05:40 PM

Good to know, thanks.