Yeah, well I thought he did Chamber of Secrets 'til I went and looked it up.

He does get credit in all of the movies since they use the themes he wrote for the first one, like "Music: John Williams; Original Score: Whoever Else."

I found it quite interesting that Narcissa didn't give Harry up. Instead of putting her "faith" in Voldemort she was more worried about her child. Kind of a nice change for the Malfoy's.

Maybe it's just me, but I didn't find the book too predictible, especially the end. I didn't expect DD to tell Snape that Harry had to die and Harry to walk up to Voldemort and "give" himself up.

Remember though, these are technically "children's books", she couldn't have thrown all those twists and turns we adults like because kids wouldn't have been able to either A) handle them or B) understand them (developmentally).

There's definitely a running theme of the strength and depth of a mother's love through the series, which makes sense as JK had two (I think? maybe all three?) of her kids while writing them.

does anyone else think that the Harry Potter series, particularly book 7, is a good way of introducing kids to the Holocaust?

I don't see HP 7 as a children's book. I think the age of the reader grew with the volume of the book. Book 1 and 2 are more geared to a child reader, but as the story progressed, I think you can safely assume the targeted reader has aged and thusly, can handle a more complex story. My son was in 3rd grade when HP debuted. He is a senior now (18 and a bit behind in credits :), and HP 7 is here. It makes sense for HP7 to be for him rather than my 3rd grade grandson.

I have a fear that the movies are going to slow the enthusiasm of for reading the books of the next "generation". I tried to get the 3rd grade grandson to read HP1 and he declined "I saw the movie already". Yes, but the book is SO much better.

No.

It's a fantasy story with a happy ending. Not something I would use to introduce the topic of genocide, but YMMV.

what does ymmv mean?

Your Milage May Vary :)

But they technically are. At our bookstores, HP is in the Children's book section, not young adult and not adult, children. The age level is probably 5-8th grade. Remember though, that other countries take education much more importantly than the United States does. So children in England could find these books quite appropriate for them. (If that makes sense at all).

I can say that at my school, the kids reading Harry Potter, would only be the 7-8th graders and then on the ones who actually read at grade level, which lowers that amount significantly, as most of our kids don't read on grade level.

HP7 would probably be a YA book if the rest of the series wasn't on the kids shelves. The books do progress in depth, subject matter, and danger which gives a nice continuum. I would have been one of the young kids reading it if it had been out back then, but I was (am) a huge reader.

WOW! That little outburst was uncalled for! My post was directed at everyone who felt it 'necessary' to but their super-extra spoiler protection to their post. Personally, if people want to bitch and moan about reading spoilers they preferred not to in a thread specifically marked "Spoilers" its their own fault.

Well... I think it's kind of strange that you're re-reading it so soon after finishing. I know that I would not be able to focus fully on the book if I did that, and probably would do the same as you. Why are you re-reading? Just to catch things that you missed? Or because you just enjoyed it so much the first time?

I know that I re-read OoTP about three months afterward, but that was mostly because I read it really super fast the first time while on vacation and I found that I had missed some important things!

I just heard that some people's books are missing pages 371-402. There would have been a real issue in this house if our books were missing pages!

I would tend to agree, especially if one means reading the books and then saying "now, let's talk about the Holocaust."

However, in the best tradition of fantasy, myth and fairy tales, these stories do portray the best and the worst in people, and life and death, in a way that helps kids start to get a handle on them. They do lay some groundwork, so to speak.

Her oldest daughter was already born when she started writing the series, but her other two children were born during. She said in one interview, that if she saw a boggart, she would see what Molly Weasley saw -- her own children dead.

Also, her mother died (of MS at age 45) while she was writing Book 1.

I wasn't expecting that either, but when I got to it, I felt like slapping myself on the forehead. She said back in 2000 that she was glad no one had quizzed her too closely on her religious beliefs, because then they'd see where the books were headed.

At the core, the books are about the power of love, and "greater love has no man than this, that he lay his life down for his friends."

A mere technicality. I think because they started out as children's books, publishers have mistakenly left them in that category. Harry, himself, is no longer a child and neither are his initial fans. But, alas, how often we humans prefer the comfort of our old ways rather than forging newer, more sensible ones.

My sister told me of a woman who shut herself up in her room, ignoring her husband and children for days until she realized 30 pages of her book were missing. After a strangled yell, she ran downstairs, ripped open a backup copy that had arrived by UPS, and went back upstairs to keep reading. (No, I don't know who she was or how my sister found out about it, but I was appalled all the same).

I don't know, but I was under the impression that the person who came into magic late in life was Kreacher. He finally accepted Harry as his master and, in that turn, was able to clean and cook just as magnificently as other houselves. Must've been some magic there that he had been witholding ever since losing Mrs. Black as a mistress.


Okay, does anyone else find the timestables of these books rather cool? For instance, that Harry was born so many years ago (about 1980), being older than many of us who read about him, and the series itself ending far into the future(about 2016)? It's kind of comforting for me to know that JKR made it a point to not let the presence of magic be bound by time...like this series and, magic in general, doesn't begin and end in our realm...it's timeless and continues on...I liked it.:o

Oh yeah, I'd also like to know what happened to Harry's profession. After all, no one is Harry year could've really finished school. Hogwart's was half-destoyed before Year 7 was up. Is there a Wizarding GED? I dunno, Generally Excepted Degree? And what happened to George...I can't imagine his life without Fred. :(

This book was fantastic! I was so engrossed in the second half, that I'd get a little testy if I had to put it down. Thankfully Pike and Phi Delt sons were reading their copies at the same time. My husband was acting grumpy and was obviously feeling a little left out. After about the 10th interruption, Phi Delt son found his copy of "The Sorcerer's Stone", gave it to his dad told him he couldn't up until he read the first 5 chapters. That did the trick and now he's hooked, too!

Interesting thought, but I don't think think it really fits with what JKR said. Kreacher could always do magic, he just didn't want to for a long while.

I still think it's either Merope or it's something she decided not to include after all.

Of course! It just hit me reading this comment why Harry/Ginny and Ron/Hermione don't have a son named Fred (assuming that Fred isn't James's or Hugh's middle name). George is the one with a son named Fred.

My other thought was that while George is alive, they won't name anyone else Fred. It wouldn't be the same.

So the reprieved indiviudal has been revealed- it was Mr. Weasley!

He was originally going to die in book 5! I am so happy he didn't. I think it would have broken my heart and added unnecessary drama.

Ack!!! Where did you read that?

What he said!

^^^^ Found it here at MSNBC. Other info there as well.

From the story: She will "probably" publish some sort of encyclopedia giving us history and back stories as well as more information about what happened between the last chapter and the epilogue.

McGonagall is NOT headmistress, Harry is not the DADA professor, although the position isn't jinxed anymore. Arthur was saved at the cost of another father in Book 7 - Ted Tonks? Lupin? Am I forgetting someone obvious?

And don't hold your breath for the encyclopedia.

i'm reading it to catch up on things that i missed, but perhaps I should wait a little bit, I always re-read the books right after, then re-read them a few months down the line (and before another book or movie came out) but this one i'm having more trouble with, so I think I might put it on the shelf for a little bit in the mean time.... :o


Also, in response to the interview- i'm super excited for any other information... even if we/I have to wait for it! lol

Since the sentence inthe article says "another father dies in the end of Book 7" (italics added), I say it was Lupin.

If we get an encyclopedia, great - but I can understand her need for a break! :)

Lupin was my first guess, I just blanked "the end" bit. Although honestly I knew from the godfather moment that Lupin and Tonks were dead. Though I was trying to figure out how they'd put a baby with a 17 year old. Sure he's of age, but that just wouldn't work.

That, coupled with Harry's remark in the Epilogue that Teddy was already at their house 3 or 4 times a week and might as well come live with them (if Harry had raised him, he probably would have said "live with us again" or "move back in with us"), is why I figure Tonk's mother raised him.

Yeah i just mean that's what I thought at the time (when I read the word 'godfather' and knew Lupin and Tonks would be dead) I think you're right that Tonks' mom raised Teddy, unless the Weasleys took on another one...

At the end of the final chapter prior to the epilogue, Harry had some thought about finally being able to sleep in the Gryffindor tower again & wondered if Kreacher would bring him up a sandwich. *shrugs*
Despite the amount of damage the castle withstood, I think it stands to reason that it re-opened fairly quickly allowing Harry & those of his year to get an "abbreviated" graduation of some sort.


From the epilogue, I'm figuring that Harry & Ginny married within 7 years of the final battle if their son James was already beyond his 1st year (did the book specify what year he was in?) and Albus & Rose were first years. Ginny & Hugo are 9 year olds. It is also heavily implied that Scorpius is also a first year.

Did I miss anything else? I'm sure I did. I just finished my second read of the book and my mind is muddled with medicine and a stupid cold (darn students).

Finally, I am curious & hope she answers this one day but are Harry & Ginny living at Grimmauld Place? Godric's Hallow at his parents old cottage? WHERE!!!
Damn unanswered questions.

It's almost like she's recreating the cast with all these kids named after other people! (James, Lily, Albus, Severus, Ted) Who are Rose and Hugo named after? Or are those original? I can remember someone named Victor Hugo, but I don't know if that's from the books or somewhere else in life. :confused:

Well there wasn't a main character named Ted, he was just named after his grandfather. And Rose and Hugo aren't particularly named after anyone.. they're just named. And named like the kids of a Muggleborn and "blood traitor" too. Anyone else notice the Weasleys all have "normal" names unlike the rest of the purebloods who are all named Latin/Faux Latin names?

Victor Hugo (1802-1885) wrote Les Misérables and Notre-Dame de Paris (The Hunchback of Notre Dame).

I have noticed that, although there are a few other pureblood families with "normal" names -- the Potters (Harry's father was James) and the Longbottoms, for example. (And Peter Pettigrew.)

I have a feeling that she had a reason for choosing Rose and Hugo, but it's just not obvious from the book. I actually checked to see if her parents were named Rose and Hugo. (They weren't.)

Apparently, at the reading this past Friday night/Saturday morning, JKR said that she had considered naming the book Harry Potter and the Battle of Hogwarts, but she thought that gave away too much. Also, it appears that she is doing a live internet interview this coming Monday, during which she'll answer questions submitted via the internet. Maybe some of these burning questions -- what are Harry, Ron, Hermione and Ginny doing, where did the names Rose and Hugo come from, who's headmaster now, etc., will be answered.

True it seems to be the "good" purebloods who have normal names, although, not ALL of them do. I can't think of any of the bad guys with normal names... what were Crabbe and Goyle's first names? I'm sure someone here remembers :D

I think Goyle's first name is Gregory :)

FYI: The interview that Meredith Viera did with JK Rowling will be on the Today show tomorrow and Friday. It was during that interview that we learned who got the reprieve.

Rose= Titanic; Hugo= Hugo Weaving aka Agent Smith & Elrond :D

I'm sure Harry and Co. have seen Titanic, Matrix trilogy and Lord of the Rings Trilogy. :D

(Sorry, had to add some humor)

I think Hugo was in honor of the Hugo Award that JKR won for writing the series.

Rose was just probably some name she liked.

And Crabbe's is Vincent.

Come to think of it, there's also Pansy Parkinson, Horace Slughorn, Rufus Scrimgeour, Ernie McMillan, Seamus Finnegan, Dean Thomas, Lee Jordon, Delores Umbridge, Adrian Pucey, Miles Bletchly, Marcus Flint, Theodore Nott and Millicent Bullstrode.

Oh well.

To be accurate, she did not receive a Hugo for writing the series. Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire received the 2001 Hugo for best novel, and not without controversy.

I certainly could be wrong, but I'd be surprised if that's the reason for the name, since she JKR received the award in absentia.