SPOILER SPACE
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Originally posted by Krissie:
Next question: why on Earth would the Death Eaters want to rally around someone like that?
There have been many villains in this world where you could wonder WHY anyone would rally around them. The main answer is that they share a common goal. Voldemort's main lieutenants all believe in a "pure" society where everyone is of pure magical blood. As I believe someone mentioned, JKR essentially pounded into our heads the comparison with Nazi Germany. In the case of Adolf Hitler, the comparisons with Voldemort were many. He was very charismatic to the point where he convinced the German people that he would lead them to victory over their oppressors.
He spoke of Aryan superiority where anyone else, especially the Jews, were the cause of all their problems. In the Harry Potter world, Aryans became anyone of pure magical ancestry. The Jews were the Mudbloods, who were either persecuted or fled the country.
Like Hitler, Voldemort killed a lot of his own people, mostly out of paranoia. Yet he still had the loyalty of millions all the way to the end.
In the same way that Hitler was not even German (he was Austrian), Voldemort was not a pure blood. It's ironic the the man leading the cause towards magical purity was himself only a half-blood where Tom Riddle, Sr. was a Muggle.
As for my take on the book, it was quite good. I also liked the fact that Snape turned out to be a good guy. I was hoping that he had been acting on Dumbledore's orders to kill him, though I hadn't suspected he was dying from his cursed hand. I had thought he was dying because of the potion he had drunk from the cave where the fake locket was found.
I didn't mind the ending. It was nice to know what would happen in the future.
There were also a number of things that completely perplexed me. I still don't understand Harry's attraction to Ginny. I can understand him not falling for Hermione. He thought of her more as a sister, which is exactly what Emma Watson said about her two co-stars when asked if she could see herself going out with Rupert or Daniel. She said that they were too much like brothers for her to ever consider dating them.
I was actually a Harry/Luna shipper. Harry was basically the only person who was actually Luna's friend. Everyone else mainly supported her because she was Harry's friend. Behind her back, and sometimes even with a slip of the tongue while in her presence, they would call her Loony Lovegood. Luna seemed to be the only one who understood Harry. I figured those two could very well end up together. But alas, it was too much like the Hunchback of Notre Dame where the "weirdo" and the heroine seemed like they fit more together than anyone else, but yet the heroine went off with the handsome hero while Quasimodo looked on with mixed emotions.
I believe Luna ends up married to someone else that doesn't appear in the books.
I could understand the whole thing with disarming being the reason why the Elder Wand switched allegiances. It was a one-of-a-kind, so it didn't happen with all wands. It shared the trait of other wands in that it chose its master. But it was essentially a wand destined for combat, therefore it would go with the stronger opponent.
But here are the things that made no sense. How did Dumbledore beat Grindelwald if having the Elder Wand makes you invincible? I guess it isn't really invincible if it can be beaten. And since Dumbledore was disarmed by Draco, it definitely wasn't very invincible. It was 0-2 in the books.
Second, it makes no sense that Harry could have been killed and then resurrected by choice because his soul was attached to Voldemort's. If Harry was the master of the Elder Wand, how could the Elder Wand kill him in one encounter and then refuse to kill him in the next, rather rebounding the Avada Kadavra and killing Voldemort instead? Huh? Does the wand have ears and thought, "Oh, Harry Potter just said he disarmed my master, Draco, a few weeks ago. I'd better go with him instead." It must have been listening in when Harry was explaining how incompetent Voldemort had been and switched sides on the spot.
If the Elder Wand did end up killing Harry in the forest, wouldn't the Elder Wand change allegiances at that moment to Voldemort? Disarming counts, but killing doesn't? If that's the case, how did the original Perevell brother lose the allegiance of the wand?
From the book:
"Naturally, with the Elder Wand as his weapon, he could not fail to win the duel that followed... That very night, another wizard crept upon the oldest brother as he lay, wine-sodden, upon his bed. The thief took the wand and, for good measure, slit the oldest brother's throat."Just from that, Dumbledore should not have won his duel with Grindelwald and the power of the Elder Wand should have died with the oldest brother since there was no duel or combat involved. It's possible that the power of the Elder Wand did die with the eldest brother and that it had been living on reputation alone. That the Elder Wand was no different from any other wand would explain everything.
I still enjoyed the book greatly, despite these seeming inconsistencies. I would rank it as the best or second best of the seven with only the Order of the Phoenix coming close. I would also put the Half-blood Prince dead last.
One other question: Why is the UK edition (which I picked up in Sweden) 607 pages while the American edition is over 750 pages long? The UK book is smaller in size and doesn't have tiny print. Is the American edition longer or does it just have HUGE print?
