anonymousASDF123
July 25th, 2007, 06:19
SPOILER: Don't read this if you have not finished the book yet.
This is a critique of certain sections of the book which I found unsatisfactory. I am not a literary critic, but just an admirer of six and a half of the books that JK Rowling wrote. Here's why...
Did anyone find this book too rushed?
I found the ending a horrible finish to JK Rowling's Harry Potter series.
The first half, I found intriguing and mysterious, leaving many things to speculate upon, which suits any first half of the books of the Harry Potter series.
The second half, however, I felt was too rushed.
Horacruxes
Did JK Rowling run out of ideas?
Recap: the first four Horacruxes mentioned... the Gaunt's ring, the Locket, Hufflepuff Cup, the diary...
1) Diary was Lucius' fault, Voldemort would NOT have told Lucius about the Horacruxes and was still weak and hidden at the time Lucius gave the diary to Ginny, still young, first Horacrux Voldemort made, I can give him some leeway with messing up that one
2) Gaunt's ring, not much information as to how Dumbledore actually retrieved it, but it has a curse so powerful that it should have killed Dumbledore
3) the Locket, hidden in an underground cave with an army of Inferi waiting, and a "Makeyoudelirious" Poison to drink, not to mention even finding the place to begin with
4) the Hufflepuff Cup, stored in "the safest place to leave anything, but Hogwarts" (Hagrid)... down in the deepest, most safely kept vaults of Gringotts Bank... which Harry was extremely lucky to find the goblin who without its help, would never have been able to infiltrate Gringotts at all
So... the Ravenclaw Diadem... how is that a Horacrux which was supposed to be so well protected and guarded by Voldemort himself was left completely unguarded and not protected?
Granted it was in the Room of Requirement, but I find that Voldemort who somehow unlocked the Chamber of Secrets which no other founding father or anyone else at Hogwarts before him found, could ever think that he was the only one EVER who was in the Room of Requirement?
Did he not know and study about Hogwarts like mad?
Isn't that how he found Salazar's Chamber to begin with?
So how is it that the most feared and darkest wizard of all time overlooked this small fact that other people know about the room too?
There must have been a bunch of hidden things already in the room when he entered the room fifty or whatever years ago.
If there were things already in the room, then obviously someone found it first.
He could not have been the first in hundreds of years of Hogwarts history to have hidden something there.
Why shove the most precious diadem of all time in a dusty closet in this room?
The explanation given was that, Voldemort was careless and he was arrogant and thought no one could find the room, but him because he didn't talk to friends or have any, for that matter.
Say the arrogance was bypassed, why did it not have any magical protection on it?
Why was Dumbledore, the greatest wizard ever, forced to drink that potion in Book 6 to retrieve the locket, but Harry allowed to touch and find and see the diadem so clearly?
Could Voldemort not have even put the basic Disslusionment charm on it?
I do not understand its lack of protection even if no one was supposed to find it. I'm pretty sure Voldemort did not mean for anyone to find his other Horacruxes, but he still put protection on them.
I guess some would say that, he put it there when he was going to Dumbledore to apply for a job and that he was rushed and could not properly put up any defenses on it.
Somehow, I don't believe Voldemort would store a 1/7 (to him a 1/6th if not a 1/2 or 1/4 because he did not know about harry becoming a horacrux and maybe he did not create the other horacruxes yet) of his soul in an unprepared and unguarded resting place.
The way it was destroyed was extremely poorly decided as well.
How is it that Crabbe, a well known idiot in all the other books, could use a skill such as Fiendfyre, when JK Rowling makes such a big deal about that sword being "invaluable" due its ability to destroy a horacrux?
Nothing else works, not a killing curse, nor anything else Harry, Ron, and Hermoine can think of, but this is a spell that does.
Maybe it's not the spell that bothers me as much, but just as who uses it.
I find that anyone less able than Voldemort and Dumbledore status should not even be able to use it at all.
Forget the fact that Crabbe misused it or that the Carrows taught him the curse.
The basilisk fang can only be cured by pheonix tears and it had the power to destroy the diary, but Fiendfyre, used by a seventeen year old grunt, once follower of Draco Malfoy, obviously somehow unleashed this amazing spell that destroyed a Horacrux?
Fiendfyre is a spell that rivals the strength of the Basilisk's venom and is extremely powerful, I cannot accept that Crabbe uses (or misuses) it and can destroy a Horacrux when the trio have been searching for the whole year to destroy one (when they did not possess the sword).
Ron
Ron speaking Parseltongue... COMPLETELY unacceptable.
It was a big deal that Harry spoke Parseltongue his second year because it was the mark of a dark wizard and basically no one alive could really do it now besides Voldemort.
It seems that it was not hard because people could pronounce the different types of "hisses".
It is not something that one just listens to and gets.
However, this "so-very-rare" language that no one can learn, but only can be born with (with Harry's exception), can be easily imitated, for Ron who saw Harry open the locket months ago, picked it up and imitated it on the fourth try and voila, opened the Chamber of Secrets.
It seems it only needs a tape recording of Harry saying "Open" in Parseltongue and first years and mermen and even Hagrid too can open the Chamber of Secrets, but more than that, just uphold conversations with snakes too.
Dumbledore
I also found that Dumbledore's life was not clearly explained either.
What happened during his time at Godric's Hollow and his sister is perfectly clear.
What I mean is... how did this arrogant 18 year old, who wanted away from his family, and conquer Muggles transform into this giant-hugging, Muggle-loving activist?
He turned from the white plantation slave owner into Malcolm-X.
I find it extremely hard to believe that he just randomly wanted to turn a new leaf.
His sister's death could without a doubt the reason for his refusal of the Minister of Magic position because he knew that his desire for power could hurt the ones he loved.
However, what I want to know is... what happens to him between his sister's death and his duel with Grindelwald?
Why does he change so drastically?
Does he still not have the "Let's Conquer Muggles" mentality?
People do not change for no reason, there must have been some experience or tribulation or journey he went through that made him change his mind about the Mudbloods and giants and house-elves and everything else.
It seems that this blank spot in JK Rowling's writing is not yet fully explained.
Her characters are usually filled with such rich experiences and pasts that it clearly shapes and molds the characters as to who they are today.
For example, Snape's clear hatred and envy of James Potter reflects as to how he treats Harry althroughout his schooling.
Hagrid's undying loyalty to Dumbledore and the Order from the start allow him to protect Harry with his own life from birth.
For Dumbledore to just change so suddenly out of the blue in that still missing gap of his life, I find is to leave out an important of the novel.
It is out of character for JK Rowling to leave such a hole in her work.
It seems like I'm picking at her, but her writing has become so rich over the series, that I expected this book to be almost impeccable and tie up every loose end from the other books.
Anyways, his treatment of Snape's death was also very out of character for Dumbledore.
When he talks to Harry about trying to make Snape the owner of the wand, he simply says... "but it did not work as I intended, did it?"
Even though Dumbledore did not fear death, I don't find that he would treat Snape's life or anyone else's as lightly as... a failed portion of a plan that he devised.
In general, these inconsistencies with Dumbledore just really annoyed me.
Maybe it's just because I revere him :D
Epilogue
The epilogue too was not satisfying.
Nothing is really mentioned at the ending.
What happens to the George Weasley?
It'd be nice to see that he became an Auror and chased down the rest of the Death Eaters that killed his brother or something.
What about Harry? Ron? Hermoine? Ginny? ANYONE
Neville is supposedly the only one with a real future, as the teacher of Herbology.
McGongall? After that huge conspiracy theory about her being evil, it's nice to see that she was good all along. What happened to her? Headmistress?
After spending countless hours pouring over these pages, reading cover to cover, learning new things about some newly introduced, but mostly old characters (Hagrid, Harry, Ron, Hermoine, the whole crew)... wouldn't it be nice to see what happens to them?
Snape? Order of Merlin?
Ron? Does he actually become successful and rich and well noticed like he's always dreamed of being?
We only know that everyone has kids everywhere and I had to read over a few times to see who's kid is who's?
Who the hell is Hugo?
Funerals for the loved Fred, Lupin, Tonks, Hedwig?
The ending to such a well loved and well received series with such amazingly complex characters is mere SEVEN pages with most of it containing kids who we'll never get to read about.
What happened?
Did Rowling need to meet her deadline real quick or something?
Why were parts of this book so shaky and poorly justified?
Why do we leave the characters with just a knowing of their kids' names?
Why not give us another 50 pages on their lives, or none at all, so we can all create our own endings in our heads?
I am thoroughly disappointed in these parts that I have mentioned, but nonetheless, I must admit that the rest of the book was truly a good read.
Leave comments. What did you think?
This is a critique of certain sections of the book which I found unsatisfactory. I am not a literary critic, but just an admirer of six and a half of the books that JK Rowling wrote. Here's why...
Did anyone find this book too rushed?
I found the ending a horrible finish to JK Rowling's Harry Potter series.
The first half, I found intriguing and mysterious, leaving many things to speculate upon, which suits any first half of the books of the Harry Potter series.
The second half, however, I felt was too rushed.
Horacruxes
Did JK Rowling run out of ideas?
Recap: the first four Horacruxes mentioned... the Gaunt's ring, the Locket, Hufflepuff Cup, the diary...
1) Diary was Lucius' fault, Voldemort would NOT have told Lucius about the Horacruxes and was still weak and hidden at the time Lucius gave the diary to Ginny, still young, first Horacrux Voldemort made, I can give him some leeway with messing up that one
2) Gaunt's ring, not much information as to how Dumbledore actually retrieved it, but it has a curse so powerful that it should have killed Dumbledore
3) the Locket, hidden in an underground cave with an army of Inferi waiting, and a "Makeyoudelirious" Poison to drink, not to mention even finding the place to begin with
4) the Hufflepuff Cup, stored in "the safest place to leave anything, but Hogwarts" (Hagrid)... down in the deepest, most safely kept vaults of Gringotts Bank... which Harry was extremely lucky to find the goblin who without its help, would never have been able to infiltrate Gringotts at all
So... the Ravenclaw Diadem... how is that a Horacrux which was supposed to be so well protected and guarded by Voldemort himself was left completely unguarded and not protected?
Granted it was in the Room of Requirement, but I find that Voldemort who somehow unlocked the Chamber of Secrets which no other founding father or anyone else at Hogwarts before him found, could ever think that he was the only one EVER who was in the Room of Requirement?
Did he not know and study about Hogwarts like mad?
Isn't that how he found Salazar's Chamber to begin with?
So how is it that the most feared and darkest wizard of all time overlooked this small fact that other people know about the room too?
There must have been a bunch of hidden things already in the room when he entered the room fifty or whatever years ago.
If there were things already in the room, then obviously someone found it first.
He could not have been the first in hundreds of years of Hogwarts history to have hidden something there.
Why shove the most precious diadem of all time in a dusty closet in this room?
The explanation given was that, Voldemort was careless and he was arrogant and thought no one could find the room, but him because he didn't talk to friends or have any, for that matter.
Say the arrogance was bypassed, why did it not have any magical protection on it?
Why was Dumbledore, the greatest wizard ever, forced to drink that potion in Book 6 to retrieve the locket, but Harry allowed to touch and find and see the diadem so clearly?
Could Voldemort not have even put the basic Disslusionment charm on it?
I do not understand its lack of protection even if no one was supposed to find it. I'm pretty sure Voldemort did not mean for anyone to find his other Horacruxes, but he still put protection on them.
I guess some would say that, he put it there when he was going to Dumbledore to apply for a job and that he was rushed and could not properly put up any defenses on it.
Somehow, I don't believe Voldemort would store a 1/7 (to him a 1/6th if not a 1/2 or 1/4 because he did not know about harry becoming a horacrux and maybe he did not create the other horacruxes yet) of his soul in an unprepared and unguarded resting place.
The way it was destroyed was extremely poorly decided as well.
How is it that Crabbe, a well known idiot in all the other books, could use a skill such as Fiendfyre, when JK Rowling makes such a big deal about that sword being "invaluable" due its ability to destroy a horacrux?
Nothing else works, not a killing curse, nor anything else Harry, Ron, and Hermoine can think of, but this is a spell that does.
Maybe it's not the spell that bothers me as much, but just as who uses it.
I find that anyone less able than Voldemort and Dumbledore status should not even be able to use it at all.
Forget the fact that Crabbe misused it or that the Carrows taught him the curse.
The basilisk fang can only be cured by pheonix tears and it had the power to destroy the diary, but Fiendfyre, used by a seventeen year old grunt, once follower of Draco Malfoy, obviously somehow unleashed this amazing spell that destroyed a Horacrux?
Fiendfyre is a spell that rivals the strength of the Basilisk's venom and is extremely powerful, I cannot accept that Crabbe uses (or misuses) it and can destroy a Horacrux when the trio have been searching for the whole year to destroy one (when they did not possess the sword).
Ron
Ron speaking Parseltongue... COMPLETELY unacceptable.
It was a big deal that Harry spoke Parseltongue his second year because it was the mark of a dark wizard and basically no one alive could really do it now besides Voldemort.
It seems that it was not hard because people could pronounce the different types of "hisses".
It is not something that one just listens to and gets.
However, this "so-very-rare" language that no one can learn, but only can be born with (with Harry's exception), can be easily imitated, for Ron who saw Harry open the locket months ago, picked it up and imitated it on the fourth try and voila, opened the Chamber of Secrets.
It seems it only needs a tape recording of Harry saying "Open" in Parseltongue and first years and mermen and even Hagrid too can open the Chamber of Secrets, but more than that, just uphold conversations with snakes too.
Dumbledore
I also found that Dumbledore's life was not clearly explained either.
What happened during his time at Godric's Hollow and his sister is perfectly clear.
What I mean is... how did this arrogant 18 year old, who wanted away from his family, and conquer Muggles transform into this giant-hugging, Muggle-loving activist?
He turned from the white plantation slave owner into Malcolm-X.
I find it extremely hard to believe that he just randomly wanted to turn a new leaf.
His sister's death could without a doubt the reason for his refusal of the Minister of Magic position because he knew that his desire for power could hurt the ones he loved.
However, what I want to know is... what happens to him between his sister's death and his duel with Grindelwald?
Why does he change so drastically?
Does he still not have the "Let's Conquer Muggles" mentality?
People do not change for no reason, there must have been some experience or tribulation or journey he went through that made him change his mind about the Mudbloods and giants and house-elves and everything else.
It seems that this blank spot in JK Rowling's writing is not yet fully explained.
Her characters are usually filled with such rich experiences and pasts that it clearly shapes and molds the characters as to who they are today.
For example, Snape's clear hatred and envy of James Potter reflects as to how he treats Harry althroughout his schooling.
Hagrid's undying loyalty to Dumbledore and the Order from the start allow him to protect Harry with his own life from birth.
For Dumbledore to just change so suddenly out of the blue in that still missing gap of his life, I find is to leave out an important of the novel.
It is out of character for JK Rowling to leave such a hole in her work.
It seems like I'm picking at her, but her writing has become so rich over the series, that I expected this book to be almost impeccable and tie up every loose end from the other books.
Anyways, his treatment of Snape's death was also very out of character for Dumbledore.
When he talks to Harry about trying to make Snape the owner of the wand, he simply says... "but it did not work as I intended, did it?"
Even though Dumbledore did not fear death, I don't find that he would treat Snape's life or anyone else's as lightly as... a failed portion of a plan that he devised.
In general, these inconsistencies with Dumbledore just really annoyed me.
Maybe it's just because I revere him :D
Epilogue
The epilogue too was not satisfying.
Nothing is really mentioned at the ending.
What happens to the George Weasley?
It'd be nice to see that he became an Auror and chased down the rest of the Death Eaters that killed his brother or something.
What about Harry? Ron? Hermoine? Ginny? ANYONE
Neville is supposedly the only one with a real future, as the teacher of Herbology.
McGongall? After that huge conspiracy theory about her being evil, it's nice to see that she was good all along. What happened to her? Headmistress?
After spending countless hours pouring over these pages, reading cover to cover, learning new things about some newly introduced, but mostly old characters (Hagrid, Harry, Ron, Hermoine, the whole crew)... wouldn't it be nice to see what happens to them?
Snape? Order of Merlin?
Ron? Does he actually become successful and rich and well noticed like he's always dreamed of being?
We only know that everyone has kids everywhere and I had to read over a few times to see who's kid is who's?
Who the hell is Hugo?
Funerals for the loved Fred, Lupin, Tonks, Hedwig?
The ending to such a well loved and well received series with such amazingly complex characters is mere SEVEN pages with most of it containing kids who we'll never get to read about.
What happened?
Did Rowling need to meet her deadline real quick or something?
Why were parts of this book so shaky and poorly justified?
Why do we leave the characters with just a knowing of their kids' names?
Why not give us another 50 pages on their lives, or none at all, so we can all create our own endings in our heads?
I am thoroughly disappointed in these parts that I have mentioned, but nonetheless, I must admit that the rest of the book was truly a good read.
Leave comments. What did you think?