Bit of a pointless ending
Ed Brims
I'm suddenly feeling a bit let down by the ending.
OotP spoilers
Tum
te
tum
What bothers me is that there was only one real twist at the end of the
book, and so I felt strangely unfulfilled when I finally got there.
Look back to Books 3 and 4, where JKR took several chapters to talk us
through the huge twists:
PoA: We find out who cast the Patronus, who Scabbers is, who the other
Marauders were, what happened at Buckbeak's execution, Lupin's secret, and
what really happened on that night with Sirius and Wormtail.
GoF: We find out Moody's true identity, who sent up the Dark Mark, the
reason Harry had seen Mr Crouch on the map, the origin of Harry and
Voldemort's wand cores, the identities of lots of Death Eaters, Rita
Skeeter's secret, Hagrid's ancestry, the fate of Bertha Jorkins,
OotP. Amid a huge build-up, we find out Trelawney's first true prophecy. And
that's the only twist.
In fact, people on this newsgroup had already worked that out - we even
guessed that it might be what Dumbledore was about to reveal when he told
Harry, "I am going to tell you everything".
The main bit of the book was fantastic, with lots of brilliant dark bits. It
was great to see Harry actually having a personality and expressing
rebellious thoughts of his own for a change. I loved the detention scenes,
the smug letter from Percy, James bullying Snape, the Weasley twins' exit...
We had some of the most emotive scenes in any of the books, and it came
desperately close to being my favourite book so far. But the ending just
spoiled everything for me, really.
Death Eater Dan
"Ed Brims" <edward...@st-johns.oxford.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:bdg1p6$emn$1...@news.ox.ac.uk...
> I've finally finished OotP, and having loved every minute of the main
story,
> I'm suddenly feeling a bit let down by the ending.
>
>
> OotP spoilers
>
>
>
> Tum
>
>
>
>
>
> te
>
>
>
>
>
> tum
>
>
>
>
>
> What bothers me is that there was only one real twist at the end of the
> book, and so I felt strangely unfulfilled when I finally got there.
>
> Look back to Books 3 and 4, where JKR took several chapters to talk us
> through the huge twists:
>
> PoA: We find out who cast the Patronus, who Scabbers is, who the other
> Marauders were, what happened at Buckbeak's execution, Lupin's secret, and
> what really happened on that night with Sirius and Wormtail.
>
> GoF: We find out Moody's true identity, who sent up the Dark Mark, the
> reason Harry had seen Mr Crouch on the map, the origin of Harry and
> Voldemort's wand cores, the identities of lots of Death Eaters, Rita
> Skeeter's secret, Hagrid's ancestry, the fate of Bertha Jorkins,
>
> OotP. Amid a huge build-up, we find out Trelawney's first true prophecy.
And
> that's the only twist.
Why do people keep saying this? How about the fact that Harry got lured here
and had to be saved by Siruis and not the other way around... no one
expected this yet no one says its a twist when it is.
Steven Sousa
> The main bit of the book was fantastic, with lots of brilliant dark bits. It
> was great to see Harry actually having a personality and expressing
> rebellious thoughts of his own for a change. I loved the detention scenes,
> the smug letter from Percy, James bullying Snape, the Weasley twins' exit...
> We had some of the most emotive scenes in any of the books, and it came
> desperately close to being my favourite book so far. But the ending just
> spoiled everything for me, really.
I agree with you 100% OotP was definitely the book I enjoyed MOST as I
was reading it, but had the most disappointing ending.
--
Steven Sousa
"As an American, I'm getting sick and tired of other countries" - Chris
Langston, as quoted in The Onion
Visit www.badtasteadvertising.com today!
Richard Eney
Ed Brims <edward...@st-johns.oxford.ac.uk> wrote:
>I've finally finished OotP, and having loved every minute of the main story,
>I'm suddenly feeling a bit let down by the ending.
I'm not.
>OotP spoilers
>
>
>
>Tum
>
>
>
>
>
>te
>
>
>
>
>
>tum
>
>
>
>
>What bothers me is that there was only one real twist at the end of the
>book, and so I felt strangely unfulfilled when I finally got there.
<snip>
>PoA: We find out who cast the Patronus, who Scabbers is, who the other
>Marauders were, what happened at Buckbeak's execution, Lupin's secret,
>and what really happened on that night with Sirius and Wormtail.
>
>GoF: We find out Moody's true identity, who sent up the Dark Mark, the
>reason Harry had seen Mr Crouch on the map, the origin of Harry and
>Voldemort's wand cores, the identities of lots of Death Eaters, Rita
>Skeeter's secret, Hagrid's ancestry, the fate of Bertha Jorkins,
>
>OotP. Amid a huge build-up, we find out Trelawney's first true prophecy.
>And that's the only twist.
We find out a few other things. Sirius is related to Bellatrix and
Narcissa. The Dept of Mysteries is working extensively with time,
so time-turners aren't just a fluke. One of the past headmasters of
Hogwarts was a Slytherin, and all the headmasters are sworn to help the
current headmaster. Painted portraits that are inhabited can link even
to portraits in other buildings, not just to other paintings nearby.
The various Hogwarts portraits _are_ part of Dumbledore's spy system.
Snape was telling the truth about how arrogant James was.
One big advantage of having a phoenix as a friend and associate is that
they can take the hit for you and just regenerate. By the way, the
phoenix apparently routinely leaves a tail feather as a message - so there
are now two more tail feathers available for wand-replenishment.
Phoenixes are either incredibly fast or can fly through a wormhole in
timespace, which gives us yet another way to travel. Speaking of
traveling, Thestrals are faster than any known broom.
And there are scads of new unanswered questions.
=Tamar
Elizabeth Naime
>I'm not.
>
> >OotP spoilers
> >
> >
> >
> >Tum
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >te
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >tum
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>We find out a few other things.
<snip happens>
> Painted portraits that are inhabited can link even
>to portraits in other buildings, not just to other paintings nearby.
>The various Hogwarts portraits _are_ part of Dumbledore's spy system.
I thought this was *very* interesting. Do wizard portraits always have
this much personality? If Harry commissioned a really good,
Headmaster's-Office quality portrait of Sirius, would he get Sirius back
(at least as much as he would had Sirius been a ghost)? Or do only some
people live on in some way in their portraits, just as only some become
ghosts? Or is it the way the portraits are made? Or is it some
preparation that Hogwarts Headmasters all went through, to allow their
portraits to retain their personalities and fulfill their duties to the
school?
I think we have a hint that portrait inhabitants can move between
different portraits of themselves, even the more ordinary sort -- the
Chocolate Frog card wizards leave their cards, perhaps to appear on
other copies?
We may never find out just how the portraits work. Fun, aren't they?
>Snape was telling the truth about how arrogant James was.
This revelation just about broke my heart. I mean, few of us are what we
were at age fifteen, and many of us were pretty darned annoying at that
age. But what an awful thing for Harry to find out.
>Phoenixes are either incredibly fast or can fly through a wormhole in
>timespace, which gives us yet another way to travel. Speaking of
>traveling, Thestrals are faster than any known broom.
Thestrals are totally cool. And the long-range transportation
possibilities boggle the mind.
>And there are scads of new unanswered questions.
One of which is, why couldn't Harry see the Thestrals at the end of
Goblet of Fire? That's been bugging me.
Elspeth, Hufflepuff (dismissed)
Broom: O-Cedar
Wand: Seven and a half inches, cedar, graphite core
Pets: Too numerous to be familiars
reply-to address: my name @kc.rr.com
chmod a+x /bin/Laden
Robert Gordon
>
>One of which is, why couldn't Harry see the Thestrals at the end of
>Goblet of Fire? That's been bugging me.
>
(after saying, "I knew someone would ask that"). Basically, she
acknowledged your point, but she said that she just couldn't introduce
such an attention-grabbing new thing at the end of a book, when she was
trying to wrap things up. So she decided, as a practical justification,
that the death that one sees has to really sink in before one can see
the thestrals. Cedric's death at the end of Book 4 was too recent to
have done its work on Harry's mind.
-- Rob Gordon
Epasn
I think you are being a little too harsh on James. Put it into
perspective, were talking about a 15 y.o boy.
And its not as if James didn't have reason to dislike Snape, they were
both as bad as each other.
I will say this though of all the character JKR has created Snape is
in my mind the most complex one. Essentially I've been able to figure
out all the other characters and how they might evolve, but Snape
confuses me.
Will he side with Dumbledore , or Voldemort??? Thats the one great
question I'm eagerly awaiting to be resolved in the next few books.
Angel
This "escamotage" seems a bit too stretched, Harry has witnessed his
mother's death and should have been able to see the Thestrals since
the very first year
...
Elizabeth Naime
>I think you are being a little too harsh on James. Put it into
>perspective, were talking about a 15 y.o boy.
I don't think I am. Remember, though I accidentally edited it out while
trimming and don't want to restart, I did point out that 15 isn't
permanent and many really arrogant and annoying 15-year-olds turn out
okay in the end.
I think it was awful for Harry to walk in on that memory, because he's
heard only good things about his parents until now from everyone except
Snape, because James and Lily aren't alive to explain it or perhaps just
apologize for it, because it's been an important article of faith for
Harry that his father was a great guy. From Harry's fifteen year old
point of view, and given how much he's been on the receiving end of
arrogance and viciousness, it looks very harsh of James indeed. We can
put it into perspective, but it's going to be a lot harder for Harry to
do so. That's why I say it was really just awful -- not that his
father's behavior is really excusable, except by saying that people grow
up eventually, but that Harry idolizes the father he never knew and
toppling James off the pedestal Harry's put him on is an awful thing for
Harry.
Probably good for his character in the long run, but awful just the
same.
>And its not as if James didn't have reason to dislike Snape, they were
>both as bad as each other.
But we don't have evidence of that in the memory. In fact, the memory
kind of implies the contrary.
Tennant Stuart
> it came desperately close to being my favourite book so far
So, which is your favourite book so far?
Tennant
--
____ ____ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ ____
(_ _)( ___)( \( )( \( ) /__\ ( \( )(_ _) Greetings to family
)( )__) ) ( ) ( /(__)\ ) ( )( friends & neighbours
(__) (____)(_)\_)(_)\_)(__)(__)(_)\_) (__) @argonet.co.uk & MCR
Jane Grey
>
> >And its not as if James didn't have reason to dislike Snape, they were
> >both as bad as each other.
>
the way I see it, James hated Snape 'cos he was a Dark Arts freak and Snpae
hated James cos he was jealous of his Quiditch skills and popularity. I
think as Snape reason is pettier, James is the better man.
--
Jane Grey
"Was he playing with the Snitch?" said Lupin eagerly.
"Yeah," said Harry, watching uncomprehendingly as Siruis and Lupin beamed
reminiscently. "Well ... I thought he was a bit of an idiot."
Brian D. Fernald
mer...@hotmail.com said...
It's rather like Harry and Malfoy treat each other, isn't it?
--
BDF.
FSOBN.
Richard Eney
Elizabeth Naime <ena...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Quoth mer...@hotmail.com (Epasn) on 27 Jun 2003 03:08:54 -0700,
>
>>I think you are being a little too harsh on James. Put it into
>>perspective, were talking about a 15 y.o boy.
>
>I don't think I am. Remember, though I accidentally edited it out while
>trimming and don't want to restart, I did point out that 15 isn't
>permanent and many really arrogant and annoying 15-year-olds turn out
>okay in the end.
OOTP spoilers, right?
10
8
6
4
2
0
>I think it was awful for Harry to walk in on that memory, because he's
>heard only good things about his parents until now from everyone except
>Snape, because James and Lily aren't alive to explain it or perhaps just
>apologize for it, because it's been an important article of faith for
>Harry that his father was a great guy. From Harry's fifteen year old
>point of view, and given how much he's been on the receiving end of
>arrogance and viciousness, it looks very harsh of James indeed. We can
>put it into perspective, but it's going to be a lot harder for Harry
>to do so.
The more Harry remembers it, the more chance there is that he will
remember the DE riot in the beginning of GoF: they were hanging people
upside down in mid-air too. That's really going to hurt: his only view
of his father is watching him behave like a DE.
Which may be exactly the reason that the particular memory was the one
Snape put into the Pensieve.
=Tamar
Epasn
It is, although in the Harry v Draco case I think Harry has the higher
moral ground. Draco's dislike of Harry stems from the fact that Harry
initially rejected his hand of friendship and sided with a "mudblood"
and a person who Draco regards as being beneath him.
Everything Harry has done to Draco has being in retribution to acts
committed against his friends.
Though I'm getting the impression that history is set to repeat itself
in the HP books.
Richard Eney
Elizabeth Naime <ena...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Quoth dic...@radix.net (Richard Eney) on 27 Jun 2003 04:52:18 GMT,
>> >OotP spoilers
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
>>We find out a few other things.
><snip happens>
>> Painted portraits that are inhabited can link even
>>to portraits in other buildings, not just to other paintings nearby.
>>The various Hogwarts portraits _are_ part of Dumbledore's spy system.
>
>I thought this was *very* interesting. Do wizard portraits always have
>this much personality? If Harry commissioned a really good,
>Headmaster's-Office quality portrait of Sirius, would he get Sirius back
>(at least as much as he would had Sirius been a ghost)? Or do only some
>people live on in some way in their portraits, just as only some become
>ghosts? Or is it the way the portraits are made? Or is it some
>preparation that Hogwarts Headmasters all went through, to allow their
>portraits to retain their personalities and fulfill their duties to the
>school?
Since non-Headmaster magical portraits also retain their personalities,
it seems to be something done while they are painted, or just afterward,
like magical photographs. This makes Dobby's portrait of Harry very
interesting indeed.
>I think we have a hint that portrait inhabitants can move between
>different portraits of themselves, even the more ordinary sort -- the
>Chocolate Frog card wizards leave their cards, perhaps to appear on
>other copies?
We are told that in PS/SS. Ron tells Harry that his card of Dumbledore
went blank because Dumbledore can't waste time hanging around all day.
And Dumbledore said he didn't care what official titles he lost, as long
as they didn't take him off the chocolate frog cards. What a spy network!
Every wizard child for generations probably still has his frog card
collection somewhere. Now all we need is a way for a living person to get
in and out of the cards, and we're in Zelazny's _Nine Princes in Amber_.
=Tamar