The Deathly Hallows

[SimonKurciski]

What did you guys think of the Deathly Hallows book? Was the ending too predictable? (And don't post here if you're going to say something like "HARRY POTTER IS TEH SURVENT OF TEH DEVUL")

 

[Sesshoku_sendo]

It was pretty good the ending was extemely predictable though. I never thought snape would be a good guy though

 

[Teh_Ephy]

Heh, I saw a conspiracy site called something like dumbledoreisnotdead.com
They said either Dumbledore isn't dead, or he wanted Snape to kill him.

 

[WILL THE ALMIGHTY]

I liked it. I already knew the general ending though.

 

[Daelin]

POSSIBLE SPOILERS, do NOT read further if you don't want to find out info about the story






























You did not predict the whole Harry-Horcrux stuff, I'm mostly certain of that. And it was kinda predictable that Snape wasn't bad. When Dumbledore pleaded to him, he was actually requesting that Snape killed him. At a moment I imagined that he would do it to renew Lily Potter's protection (which I thought disabled due to Voldemort using Harry's blood). Iminent death was also predictable (whether it was due to the water in the basin, or the curse from Malvoro's ring). The only characters that I regret being killed were Lupin and Tonks. And yay for Mrs. Weasley. I also liked the whole wand mending stuff at the end of the book.

Overall, pretty neat! I hated the epilogue though... Albus Severus, Lily and James? COME ON Rowling, that is LAME! Hehe, anyway, it was worth buying and reading the series. Though some find them children books, I think they were really interesting and a collection worth-having.

-Mihai

 

[iron_warrior]

Things I had predicted in the book, were, as follows...

- Harry was the last Horcrux. I didn't actually think he'd be a seventh one, I just thought he'd be one in general. Of course I didn't guess the whole soul bouncing thing, though.
- Snape being good. Yeah, I worked that one out, I thought he was going to kill Dumbles because of the Unbreakable Vow thing, though.
- The ending. Duh!

Personally, I liked the first half of the book over the second. The first half was very Cloak-And-Dagger, and felt quite alot like WW2 (The radio and such)

The second half started to feel like a Zelda game...collect the Deathly Hallows, put them together. Aight, then you become the Master of Death, and now destroy some Horcruxes.

I liked the King's Cross part, but, like alot of people, disliked the Epilogue. J.K. actually was planning on making a longer one, with more details, but forgo-ed it for a short one with stupid names. Great collection of books, possibly some of the best ever written. Although silly fanboiz will tell you LotR is better, which I find despicable and nonsense...ever second page filled with a song, and ever second song sung in Elvish or something.

 

[boomwolf]

actually LoTR is better, and i'll kill you if you call me a fanboy.

but it dosent change the fact this is a great collection...(LoTR simply is even better...somehow...)

 

[Massive_attack]

LOTR pwns Harry Pot-head.

 

[SimonKurciski]

Oh god, please don't let this turn into a Harry Potter vs LOTR argument. The two series of books are very different, and in my opinion, they cannot be compared. LOTR has much deeper lore, and also a much deeper back-story, and Harry Potter appeals more to younger generations, and I can see why.

 

[Darkey]

SPOILERS, do NOT read further if you don't want to find out info about the story






























I liked the book, I find the part where they visited Deathly Hallow to be a really good one. Nagini popping out from Bathilda Bagshot? Epic!

But I also find the part where Fred died to be pretty sad, poor George no longer having his twin brother alongside him.

Overall I find the whole collection of books to be really good, they're definitely worth buying, since they are one of the greatest. Story's good, the characters are good and I like the plot twists.

 

[Teh_Ephy]

Actually, that was Godric's Hollow that they visited.

 

[Darkey]

Yeah, my bad.

 

[Landy]

waiting for this book in russian. -.-

 

[SimonKurciski]

Small spoiler...........










































The only thing that I predicted in the seventh book wa that RAB was Regulas Black.

 

[Darkey]

Landy, why not just read it in english?

 

[Landy]

I dont think i can read english literature...
anyways english version is not selling here..

 

[Teh_Ephy]

Heh, don't read up on too many spoilers here then.
BIG DAMN SPOILER: BABY NORBERT IS A GIRL! HER NEW NAME IS NORBERTA.

 

[Darkey]

Haha, Teh_Ephy.

 

[Teh_Ephy]

It is a big damn spoiler. In size and in relevancy to the plot. Can't say I was lying.

 

[iron_warrior]

Oh god, please don't let this turn into a Harry Potter vs LOTR argument. The two series of books are very different, and in my opinion, they cannot be compared. LOTR has much deeper lore, and also a much deeper back-story, and Harry Potter appeals more to younger generations, and I can see why.

Harry Potter has a very "deep" lore. Before all those lame LotR sequels (the other books J.R.R released later) both Potter and LotR use the same fantasy world creation style. The actual details of the world are vague, and sometimes parts are left blank, but the world feels very whole and real.

What makes LotR bad is it's unbearable to read...but yeah, you have a point about not getting into the argument.

 

[lorothrigs]

I predicted most of it, but I still thought it was one of the best books I'd ever read. I read it in 11 hours spanned over 29.

 

[STARS-ZombE]

actually LoTR is better, and i'll kill you if you call me a fanboy.

but it dosent change the fact this is a great collection...(LoTR simply is even better...somehow...)

you state that as though it is a fact then tell someone youll kill them if they call you a fanboy.
A: It is fanboyish to solidly think one is better over the other in fact form
B: why do you care so much if people call you a fanboy?

 

[Dil999]

I loved the book. I finished it on a 6-hour plane flight from new jersey to california, and I actually didnt predict that snape would be good.
I really think the book was great because she managed to create a story over almost 10 years, and seemed to have known exactly what the ending outcome was when she was writing the first book- and still managed to change the feeling from the first to seventh books so much you wouldnt think they are from the same author.

 

[PurplePoot]

It was decent, but in general it read like the others.

---go out, probably get attacked by something early on---

---go around, get into trouble in some way or another---

---probably get captured/attacked by bad guys once or twice, looks bad but miraculously survives---

---big problem presented/resolved in the end---

In general, the fillings were pretty good, but it would be nice if the model above wasn't used.

And I think I can say that before the book, I thought snape was with the Order. During the book, I thought he was with Voldemort. After the book, well... duh?

Also, the Horcrux thing got old fast (especially after reading the 6th book, how it effectively tells you what all the horcruxes are, etc, etc), but the ministry raiding, and the gringotts raiding in the midst of all the horcrux hunting among other things, were interesting.

[off-topic]

Before all those lame LotR sequels (the other books J.R.R released later) both Potter and LotR use the same fantasy world creation style.

Pfft, they weren't lame. The silmarillion kicked ass ><. Also, that's like saying "Before the LOTR books were written, harry potter had a more unique world". Well, duh, LOTR had no world before it existed. But if you count a series, you count all of it. Even with The Hobbit, LOTR 1-3, The Silmarillion, AND Unfinished Tales, LOTR had less books than Harry Potter does.

Also, LOTR had a unique world, while Harry Potter takes place on earth. Arda was effectively an ancient earth, but everything except general geography of one of the four ages were completely different, and the books even included maps to give you a general feel of the world.

 

[WILL THE ALMIGHTY]

You make it sound like Harry Potter was written before or at the same time as LOTR.

"Before the LOTR books were written, harry potter had a more unique world"

I'm sorry, wtf. Wasn't LOTR written in 1940 or so? And didn't Tolkien have the time to die before even one of the Harry Potter books was written?

 

[PurplePoot]

I know, the time frame doesn't work, my point was that you can't pick and choose of what parts of a series "count"

 

[HermanTheGibbon]

SPOILERS, WHOOT









WTF, was it only me who was overcome with sorrow when Dobby was killed?! LMAO I MEAN COME ON PEOPLE, WHERE ARE YOUR SOULS?! I am terribly shamed to admit it, but I actually shed a couple of tears during Dobby's little funeral, it was absolutely heart wrenching! I also would've never predicted that it was Snape who Voldermort kills, after all the hoo harr about one of the main characters being killed by the Dark Lord. I was convinced it was going to be Hagrid, so in a way I was releived when it was Snape, but the whole chapter with the penseive made me a little sad

As for the '19 years later bit...' I think the book could've done without it. It was nice to see that Ron and Hermione got together and had children and stuff, but I think it took away a lot of the atmosphere from the end of the actual story. It would've been better leaving them as youngsters and at Hogwarts because that's what I think a lot of younger readers will have become familiar with, because apart from being wizards, the main characters aren't that different from themselves, so showing them as adults suddenly distances them a little from all those who have read the whole series over the years and come to love Harry and co.

P.S. Saying Harry Potter has a lore as deep or deeper than LOTR is absolute tosh! Tolkien worked on his creation over most of his lifetime, until the day he died he was still working on it, over half a century according to Cristopher Tolkien. Rowling worked on the Harry Potter series for about 10 years I beleive I think she also knew the outline of the whole triliogy before she even started writing the first book, so it was never subject to any evolution like Tolkien's lore was constantly changing and elvolving to become deeper and more beleivable. It's not possible to write anything even comparable to the whole collection of lore Tolkien wrote in 10 years. And don't forget the Silmarillion is only a collection of the most important elements put together by Cristopher Tolkien after JRR's death, he says himslef it would've been too huge a task to put all of his father's workings together into one book.

 

[SimonKurciski]

Harry Potter has a very "deep" lore. Before all those lame LotR sequels (the other books J.R.R released later) both Potter and LotR use the same fantasy world creation style. The actual details of the world are vague, and sometimes parts are left blank, but the world feels very whole and real.

What makes LotR bad is it's unbearable to read...but yeah, you have a point about not getting into the argument.

1. Harry Potter does not have a deeper lore than LOTR.

2. The Silmarilillion is not a sequel to LOTR. It was written before the books were written. Furthermore, it is not lame.

What makes LotR bad is it's unbearable to read

3. What you just said boils down to "It's bad because it's bad." That's not an argument. You need a premises and a conclusion.

 

[frostwhisper]

You're not the only one who shed a tear, Herman...

 

[Elenai]

The Silmarillion was an ongoing project of Tolkein that lasted nearly 3/4 of his life, constant editing revising and ect. The Hobbit, the LOTR, and The Lost Tales are the backbone of modern fantasy literature. Most scources take inspiration from Tolkein who took inspiration from the old myths and ledgends of Old Europe like Beowulf, he also took inspiration from the Bible, for example to Music of Illuvatar, Melkor the fallen Valar, and his own Catholic beliefs shaped the elves way of life, like marraige. The Lord Of the Rings is not at all unbearable to read, The Silmarillion is a little confusing but its a Lore book not a story to entertain as such. The lore created by Tolkein is probably one of the most original ever created, as it was one of the first of its modern kind with others being C.S.Lewis's Narnia and others. It only seems unoriginal perhaps because so many people have copied his work.

Harry Potter on the other hand, it may have also taken inspiration from Tolkein, but not much. My view on Harry Potter is...

-Its a nice book the world is very nice.

-It brought a love of reading to many kids I applaud that.

-While it very appealing to children and some adults, it doesnt have as deep and mature a feel as the LOTR or Beowulf (an old anglosaxon epic), and its lore is very vague and almost nonexistent outside of the story where as Tolkein's Silmarillion fills alot of the gaps in the LOTR and the Hobbit.

-The book was meant to be appealing to children and very young teens, where as LOTR was meant to be appealing to older more thoughtful readers The Hobbit was meant to appeal to children more than adults.

-While the Harry Potter world is very nice..The characters are very poorly designed, Noone but Harry gets the spotlight and he always gets away with his bad behavior, One because hes a favorite student, Two because he survived an attack as a child. He is an attention getter and no other character gets the same good treatment as he does, Thats why I like Draco because he has character flaws and is a real person that struggles with jealousy over another student who never seems to do anything wrong nor does he seem to wrong. Draco is a much deeper character under his guise of a bully than Harry is who is under a constant "I have a scar and I am better than you both magically and mentally because I am always Good" Harry also uses the "end justifies the means" philosophy when the end does not justify the means in life.

I also dont like how Ron is constantly the ignorant and borish one and Hermionie is constantly the smart one. They never show a brilliant (ron) or a stupid (hermionie) moment. Nor do they ever show Harry utterly fail where as every one around him constantly has to rely on Harry and to some extent his friends, when clearly they could learn to rely on themselves and support each other.

Thats why I (in my own opinion) dont like Harry Potter very much, because the characters (the main focus of the story) is utterly predictable and bland and flat.

 

[Darkey]

Heh, I figured this was a topic about the Deathly Hallows and not a discussion whetever Lord of the Rings or Harry Potter is better.

And yeah, I was suprised I felt a little sad for that little bastard Dobby when he died. I developed a big hate for him at the second book.