I really did hink that Harry would kill him with Avada Kedavra. But It was the wand unable to kill it's master thing. Well why did it kill Harry fine out in the woods??

-He imitated it, which I found hilarious. The further along the series goes the dumber/arrogant Voldemort looks and how easier it seems to get to defeat him. He starts off as this big, immortal, nearly invincible wizard and in the end gets blown up by his own wand.
-Their relationship has been coming since book four, at least
-That part is pretty complicated, essentially: Harry did die, in doing so Voldemort destroyed the Horcrux (which was not fully bound to Harry's soul, since he was shielded by his mother's love), that was baby Voldi in the station, the station is the place between life and death, where he could talk to the ghost of Dumbledore, he did however have a tiny connection with life left (the blood bond with Voldemort), harry had united the Hallows and apparently had become 'the master of death', so he could return to life with the Horcrux destroyed. I'm not entirely sure how important the blood bond is though, that part got pretty complicated
-The epilogue indeed doesn't seem to match the tone and writing of the rest of the book, however, it does tie in with the first book. I could have done without it.
-Kids love this kind of stuff ! I thought HBP was worse with all the soul splitting though, but perhaps for reasons most kids could not understand (non-religious reasons at that). The latter books do seem aimed more at adults than kids, but can be enjoyed by both I'd say.

I think it was because this time he called out for the wand, in the first fight he actually wanted to die so the wand did his bidding ? Essentially the spells collided (like in the Goblet of Fire) but Voldemorts was pressed back immediately and he was hit by both spells ?
I agree the line about the wand not willing to kill the master is confusing and could possibly indicate something else. However, I've long since come to accept the little inconsistencies in HP...

The wand was allowed to "kill" Harry the first time because Harry allowed it to happen (i.e. he didn't fight back) and because it knew Harry wouldn't die because he owned all three Hallows. The second time was when there was actual fighting involved, so that's when it betrayed Voldemort.

Well, as doc_bean says:
You'd think Voldemort would have thought of that at least enough to prolong the duel. Remember, with Dumbledore dead Voldemort is the most powerful wizard in existance. Surely he could have thought of something besides a bit of banter before his rebounding curse killed him. That duel was just cheesy.

It's actually the blood bond that makes it impossible for Voldemort to kill Harry, but the Voldemort part of him was destroyed by it (since it's dark magic it can destroy a Horcrux).
Harry was the master of death because he had indeed united the three Hallows, but that he came in possession of all three doesn't seem to have him the master of death, rather he got because he WAS the master of death all along, the one who greeted Death as an equal and accepted it. Ultimately I guess the Hallows where more symbolic than anything else, after all, Dumbledore DID defeat Grindelwald when he had the wand (and was the rightful owner).
Of course, this would imply some sort of reverse causality since the wand came into his posesion through a series of coincidences, yet was destined to do so.


Like i always said, HP books are enjoyable, but don't stand up to well against scrutiny...

Ron and Hermione need to friggin' give up and just shag already.

Started well but did seem to drag on in the middle then rush to a quick conclusion near the end. It seemed as if the author almost ran out of ideas and patience and hastily penned through the destruction of the remaining horcruxes in a matter of a chapter or so.

I was disappointed with how the really rather engaging Horcrux story that had been started in the previous book had been accelerated to it's ultimate anticlimax. The first Horcrux, the locket was surrounded by an interesting plot, was hidden in a location that contributed towards the plot of the previous book, clearly required the sword of Gryffindor to destroy it and it's destruction was dramatic. The locket takes most of the book before it can be destroyed, the cup takes quite some retrieving and the idea of the Gringotts break in is interesting, though this is where it all starts to go wrong with the far fetched escape on the dragon. Once they arrive back at Hogwarts the plot and quality of writing nosedives with the poorly put together, and rushed through destruction of the tiara in the room of requirement by the fiend fire. Ron and Hermione are unrealistically absent from the plot later on and then return with the destroyed cup - basilisk fangs, chamber of secrets etc - this takes away from the importance of the sword somewhat, the fang is acceptable against a soft organic book but not against metallic items such as the ring, locket, cup and tiara. Then Neville Longbottom turns up with a sword, which turns out to be the sword of Gryffindor and unceremoniously beheads the serpent - just to get that one out of the way and save a few pages. All far too easy and convenient. I'm not entirely sure how the sword magically made it's way from Griphook the Goblin, last seen in Gringotts, to Hogwarts ending up in Neville's hand... perhaps I missed that bit somewhere?

The way that Voldemort was destroyed did make some sense however. As I understood it, Harry was the true master of the Elder Wand as he had acquired it from Draco Malfoy who had been the previous master. His disarming of Malfoy and taking of his own wand caused the Elder Wand to recognise Harry as it's master, this is why Voldemort's curses against Harry with that wand had all failed - the first killing the Horcrux inside harry and the second rebounding and killing Voldemort with his own curse. It made sense that Voldemort would bring about his own end, though the whole scene of his demise seemed rather contrived.

As to the deaths, they were far too clinical and callous from the author's perspective. Central characters killed off with hardly a mention, especially in the case of Snape, one of the Weasley twins, Remus Lupin and Nymphadora Tonks. Killing off for just for the sake of it just to boost sales with the "who get's killed off?" mania.

I liked the book, and the previous 6 better, but I do think it could have been so much better if the last few chapters had been better thought out and not rushed through to conclusion.

That's how I thought at first, but remember the last major duel with the Elder Wand. Grindelwald was an extremely powerful wizard, and the rightful owner of the Elder Wand. At the time, he was about equal with Dumbledore, and yet Dumbledore defeated the Elder Wand and took it from Grindelwald.

Harry, on the other hand, was never as powerful as Dumbledore, and Voldemort was almost as strong as Dumbledore, as evidenced by their duel in book five. Whereas Grindelwald and Dumbledore duelled for a long time, with the one who did not have the Elder Wand winning in the end, Harry and Voldemort each send one curse, and Voldemort just dies. You'd think that Voldemort could at least have put up some resistance, seeing as he was much stronger than Harry.

I thought the evolution of the horcrux quest mirrored the way Voldemort destroyed his own soul/self to make them. The first Horcrux was the diary, which was extremely powerful and dangerous and capable of 'resurrecting a new Tom Riddle'. The second one was the ring, hidden in a place not many would find, capable of killing anyone who puts it on, it ultimately was the reason Dumbledore died. The third one was the locket, also well hidden and well guarded, yet wasn't cursed in the way the ring was cursed, it did almost kill harry and like the diary, seemed capable of resurrecting it's own Voldemort (the locket is arguably a more dangerous/better Horcrux than the rind, but we do find out about it sooner too). The cup was hidden in Gringotts, a place deemed impossible to rob by common means, yet was not protected by 'dark magic' like the previous two items. The tiara was hidden in the RoR, perhaps because Voldemort was arrogant enough to assume he was the only one who could enter the room to retrieve something (he must have realised people could always use it to hide stuff, yet they never seemed to have retrieved what they had hidden), an incredibly arrogant assumption and weak protection. Nagini was an animal and thus generally considered unfit to make into a horcrux, yet he did so anyway. With each additional horcrux he created he became less human, but more arrogant and careless, convinced of his own superiority.

The sword of griffindor was never really needed to destroy a horcrux, they should just destroy them beyond (ordinary) magical repair. Dark magic fits this definition very well (Snape was capable of 'curing' or 'countering' dark magic, but almost everyone else said wounds caused by dark magic don't heal, even Snape couldn't fully reverse the effects), the fiendfyre thing was rather cheap, but also not totally a deus ex machina. Same with the basilik fang.

I agree that the pacing wasn't brilliant but I didn't think it was in the other books either (book 1 and 4 were worse imo).

As usual for HP, the climax hinges on multiple fundamental aspects of magic which are expected to be logically apparent to the 'muggle' readers having never been even considered by generations of wizards. Even worse, they just happen to favor the good guys, when there is no logical reason why they couldn't just as easily favor the bad guys. One is forced to conclude that either wizards are, by and large, idiots with little or no understanding of their own powers or the author has little respect for her readership. This is consistent throughout the HP series, critical story elements get their introduction mere moments before they alter the whole way the storyverse works.

Secondly almost all of the deaths occur 'off camera.' 400 pages of Harry sitting in a tent brooding, and we can't get a paragraph for Lupin and his wife?

Thirdly why do only dead people get depth? Dumbledore is nearly a one note living saint... while he's alive. Then, even as his slanderers in the story are mocked, the author proceeds to slander Dumbledore in a completely unecessary side story that puts him in a wizarding version of the Hitler Youth for a few months, and then lets him help kill his sister. Then we see that Snape did it all for love. He wasn't redeemed or trustworthy, he was just lovesick and a little dumb, so he ate a bad death and got Potter for his confessor. All part of Harry growing up you say? But it's the pattern that matters, only the bad guys and the dead guys get nasty things said about them.

Fourthly, length. The best part of the early books was how vividly they created a unique storyverse with fun rules and characters. The worst part of the later books was how desperately JKR drug them out, stretching scenes of supposed angst for whole chapters of inanity.

As with all the Harry Potter books, the world in which it exists is well and cleverly evoked. I've barely touched ground in London, but the descriptions ring true to what I know of England, but with a very obvious overlay of magical flair.

The characters really have grown up. From what I remember, being a teenager was a lot like spending months wandering around, brooding in a tent. Not that I wanted to read about that part of it. :p

The books are very easy to read. They flow naturally from one element to the next, and until the end you don't feel like you've missed much of importance.

Finally, JKR is a native story teller. She knows how to create a good tale and keep it moving and interesting. Yeah, it drags, but not so much that you put it down. If the writing sometimes fails, the ideas themselves keep coming up fun.

LOL @ The spoiler tags

Wasn't the best Potter book but It was decent.

1. Neville beheading the serphent wasn't cheap. Only an incredibly brave person can get the sword and if you follow the series Neville is braver than anyone outside of Harry so he got his reward.

2. Diary+locket+ring+cup+diadem+snake+Harry+Voldemort= 8 pieces of soul. Wasn't Voldemort supposed to have a 7 piece soul?

3. Dumbledore could easily have blown Malfoy into little bits but he used that split second to immobilize Harry instead. Basically he surrendered to Malfoy giving Malfoy possession of the Elder Wand.

4. Yeah the last fight was dissapointing but even without the Horcruxes Voldemort is a hundred times better than Harry so Harry needed a random lucky spell to win.

5. Yes, the books do get a lot darker and 5,6,7 are probably not good for little kids but remember that the little kids that started reading the series are now in their mid to late teens.

6. Oh, and in my opionon Harry treated Ginny like crap

But Voldy "accidently" split his soul when he tried to kill Harry, so he "accidentally" gained an extra Horcrux.

1. Well it was said earlier in the series that only the true heir of Gryffindor would be able to pull out the sword. And remember that Neville was a possible boy in the prophesy.

2. He split it 6 times because he feared a 7th would make him too unstable, he accidently made Harry one though.

3. Yes that made Malfoy the owner of the wand.

I felt it really lacked the school, some of the best parts from previous books involve the school, and the terms also gave useful structure..

the final battle thing was disappointing too...

Yeah, I know what you mean. The last quarter of the book, which practically took place in the school, did make up for that a bit more. I felt that at points the book, without the school, lost some of it's direction - especially in the earlier parts of the story. Still, the Gringotts robbery and the Malfoy manor bit made up for the sometimes overly long camping bits.

The last duel was sort of disappointing, but I was more annoyed at Bellattrix's death than at Voldemort's demise really. I mean, Ms Weasly ?!

Also, Snape's memories were a very interesting part! One of the highlights in my opinion.

Harry used the disarming spell because it was his signiature move. At the start they warn him not to let it become that. I believe thats why he won in one spell.

Took me three hours to read.

I know, I was thinking that somebody like Lupin, or a close friend of Sirius, would have killed Bellatrix. On the other hand, Neville getting his revenge would have been nice.