AxTng1 on 9/8/2007 at 22:07
I noticed that too, but perhaps Teddy was seeing someone off on the train, without him being a student. Or you could create some sort of time-turner based werepaedophile conspiracy. ;)
Shug on 9/8/2007 at 23:07
She was just making Teddy out to be a sexual predator
Starrfall on 9/8/2007 at 23:50
THERE WAS A LOT OF ROARING
Seriously other people noticed this too right
I mean it was so noticeable its the first thing I think of to tell people
Peanuckle on 12/8/2007 at 04:15
It would have made my day if You-Know-Who's fate was left up to the reader. I'm almost always sympathetic towards the villains. :D
Oli G on 13/8/2007 at 23:02
[SPOILER]I slogged through the last one over a couple of days much as I slogged through the 3 that preceded it - the plot was enjoyable enough at the time, but the actual narrative left a lot to be desired. Since book 3 Rowling's plots have been too convoluted and overpopulated with minor characters for them to be anything other than instantly forgettable.
My main objection to the book though is Rowling's devaluation of death. If you kill a character it should really mean something; a death in fiction ought to provoke an instant emotional response on the part of the reader, rather as a death in real life would. But because of Rowling's disorganised imagination, her deaths just don't do that.
Dumbledore died at the end of the last book. He then returns at the end of the latest one in an unexplained limbo to explain some unresolved plot holes to Harry. And it turns out he's been telling Snape what to do from a magical painting all the way through the book - even though he's dead. Snape dies, but hey, he was headmaster of Hogwarts, so he's going to end up in a painting as well. Harry's parents pop up before the final showdown and have a chat with him. Even though they're dead as well.
Now, a lot of characters get killed off in this book - in my opinion too many, because it's impossible to sustain more than one emotional climax at a time. But even if the narrative was well structured enough for all the deaths to mean something, they don't. In Rowling's world death is not something final, but merely something ambiguous. Whenever she kills a character, she stresses the finality of their death; but she never reconciles the emotional effect which she wants to achieve with the actual effect - namely confusion - which her writing provokes. She goes on and on in the last book about how magic can't bring people back to life. It's a shame her writing doesn't follow the same rule.[/SPOILER]
D'Juhn Keep on 15/8/2007 at 07:17
Quote Posted by LancerChronics
However JKR did make one LITTLE mistake, though I'm probably the only one OCD enough to notice.(or I could be wrong, you tell me)...
I "noticed" that too then realised it does say in the book that he only came down to see her off. So he deosn't go to Hogwarts anymore and it's not a mistake.
Edit: I also just noticed being beaten handily by Axtng
