I think you're being a little harsh on the Chekov's Gun (aka Puzzlebox) style of book. I'm not say it's great literature and I'm not actually sure who is claiming its great literature but one of the few things that DH Appreciators can actually sell me on is how fun it is to see the books fitting together. David, for example, loves that sort of thing. And apparently if you read back it's very rewarding. I'm just saying.

I'm totally fine with the Puzzlebox style. I just find it annoying that people confuse it with literary merit (which I think they do).

I read all your DH reviews and I couldn't stop laughing. I agree with every single word. As much I used to love HP, I completely hate DH. I honestly think you're a 100 times better writer than JKR.

That's very kind of you.

Hehe, that's not saying much - a large portion of her fan community are better writers than JK ;)

My jumping off point was definitely the 5th book ... retrospectively I'm a bit peeved with the 4th but I remember just being hungry for more Potter at the time and not minding the length much beyond thinking "well, this is a wee bit indulgent."

I think the reason I tend to hold the 4th book in higher esteem than, say, the 5th is that a) something actually happens in it, and it is actually - while flabby - much leaner than book 5, and b) when blokey dies at the end it's genuinely striking and powerful, because none of the good guys have ever actually died in a HP book so far, so you had a sense that a line had been crossed.

The problem is, with the exception of Dumbledore, Voldemort and (arguably) Sirius and Hedwig, every death after that has been of a less important character, rather than a more important character.

I hadn't thought about a lot of these points until I had read your reviews, and even then I was unwilling to completely side with your point of view. I did notice I didn't like the characters as much once it hit Half-Blood Prince, but I've also been reading the series since I was 8, and I'm currently 19, so I really, really wanted to continue loving the series. But I must admit, you are pretty much completely correct about Harry Potter, particularly Deathly Hallows.

The only disagreement I have is about the suicide cult. They truly, honest-to-God, believed that the only way to destroy Voldemort and save the Wizarding World was for him to sacrifice himself. They were proud of him for doing the right thing and making an ultimate sacrifice. I can see why you do think the mauraders and Lily encouraging his walk to death was creepy, though.

I think the issue here is that I tend to engage with texts on a more (for want of a better term) "meta" level. Yes in the text Harry sacrificing himself is the only way to defeat Voldemort, but the reason it's the only way to defeat Voldemort is that Rowling chose to *make* it the only way to defeat Voldemort.

This is partially a personal, political preference, but I have real issues with the fetishisation of martyrdom, particularly when the martyrs are children. "Killing yourself in order to kill your enemies" isn't noble, it's suicide bombing.

There's also the simple fact that there was no actual reason to *kill* Voldemort other than the (again rather dubious) notion that it is desirable to slay one's enemies. His Horcruxes didn't make Voldemort all-powerful, or even indestructible. They didn't stop anybody from putting him in prison or even from simply taking his wand away (which would have rendered him entirely powerless). As I think I point out in the reviews, Harry's sacrifice very specifically *isn't* about saving anybody, it's about killing somebody.

"Killing yourself in order to kill your enemies" isn't noble, it's suicide bombing.

It isn't suicide bombing. It's just suicide, and Harry's attempt at it killed no one.

taking his wand away (which would have rendered him entirely powerless).

As for being wandless, Quirrel and the kids at the orphanage didn't find him lacking power.

Harry's sacrifice very specifically *isn't* about saving anybody, it's about killing somebody.

I agree. More specifically, it's about making someone killable. This would be cool if Rowling did more with it, making him more human, having Harry forgive Voldemort who would then experience different sort of love magic.
But alas, she limp-dicked it, made it an action movie lacking thought, heart or potency.

Sorry Frank, I have to go with Dan on this one. On a pedantic level (my usual level) it's not strictly actual suicide bombing, but I think it's a reasonable comparison.

On the other hand, I seem to remember people casting spells without a wand, so I'm with you there.

On a third, mutant hand, I'm not sure about the forgiveness bit - it's been done and is typically a bit nauseating and unlikely (especially given Harry isn't exactly the pure noble benevolent type who usually gets taht role). But taking away his power and locking him up, or indeed going through some kind of Due Process and executing him (the wizarding world being fairly brutal) - that'd work.

That makes me think of the mixed fan reaction to the finale of Avatar (the Last Airbender series, not the James Cameron film!).

Spoiler alert:

Ozai, the villain, is stripped of his powers and put in jail--this after the main conflict for the hero is how to succeed without killing, because he comes from a pacifist society (that was wiped out by these bad guys). A lot of people just couldn't accept at all that this was a victory because Ozai would still be a threat as long as he was alive.

Myself, I thought it worked. A guy without powers was neutralized and wouldn't get out of prison--and if somebody wanted to write him doing that in a fanfic that's fine, but it wasn't really a problem. But it just struck me how people didn't see "strip him of his magic powers and put him in prison" was a viable option.

I suspect that part of this is just narrative neatness. If the villain doesn't die, then there's a lot of awkward questions to ask about what actually *does* happen to them. It's often the same with ex-lovers - better for them to die than for them to be hanging around spoiling the ending. Heck it's the same with mentors.

On the other hand, there's something more than a bit iffy about a mentality that says "no, just stopping them from hurting anybody ever again isn't enough, we need to kill them in public."

I'm not sure about the forgiveness bit - it's been done and is typically a bit nauseating and unlikely
Well, that's not to say it can't be pulled off, even in fiction (as my father is pointing out, there's a lot of stuff you can get away with in nonfiction that would be infinitely less credible in fiction). I do agree, however, that Harry was probably not the best candidate for that role.

I suspect that part of this is just narrative neatness. If the villain doesn't die, then there's a lot of awkward questions to ask about what actually *does* happen to them.
You're more forgiving than I am, Dan. I consider it lazy, often as not. Many times, I'll grant you, killing off the villain (as opposed to merely neutralizing them) is integral to the plot - but I've seen loads of other examples where the only reason for killing off the villain seems to be that it's the cultural default. (While killing off the mentor is even more cliche, it, at least, can often serve to advance the plot.)

On the other hand, there's something more than a bit iffy about a mentality that says "no, just stopping them from hurting anybody ever again isn't enough, we need to kill them in public."
I don't know about "in public," but yes, I am painfully aware of said mentality (it's practically a staple here in the US) and it's very, very disturbing.

Bugger! I forgot to point out that while an “all as forgiven” ending (as written by Rowling) would undoubtedly have been nauseating and unlikely, I question whether it would've been actively worse than the epic anticlimax she actually delivered.