digg

Join DiggAbout

The Digg Crew wants to hear your thoughts!
Please take our short survey about Digg and potential feature ideas.

J.K. Rowling Gives Greater Detail of Epilogue in Last Harry Potter Book

msnbc.msn.com — Spoiler alert: This story reveals some key plot points in the final Harry Potter book. So if you've haven't finished the book, J.K. Rowling asks that you not read this story. Author gives details on events after the book’s final epilogue.

show profanity settings
expand all
  • Pacotheparrot, on 10/16/2007, -8/+121Man she's going to be talking about this story for decades....
    • Emmo213, on 10/10/2007, -9/+16I agree. I'll admit I'm a Potter fan, but she can just randomly make up small bits of the story whenever she feels like now. She doesn't ever have to end it, but that might belittle the books she's already written.
      • FearlessFreep, on 10/10/2007, -6/+51J.K Lucas?
      • UtopiaInTheSky, on 10/10/2007, -3/+50"Randomly make up small bits"? She wrote the damn books.
        She was "making it up" anyway originally. Instead, now, she's not writing it in a book... She's speaking the words from her mouth.
      • jdpribula, on 10/10/2007, -0/+40It's more like Tolkien she has a world that she invented and can do what she will
        • FearlessFreep, on 10/10/2007, -0/+27Does she have any kids who will publish every napkin she's scribbled on?
        • Bhima, on 10/10/2007, -7/+2@emmo: That ***** did not work with Ursula K. Le Guin.
    • jeffeb3, on 10/10/2007, -11/+22this is a little ridiculous. I think she is actually protecting her story by making things after her seventh book uneventful. It basically means that there will be no more stories involving her characters. No one wants to read a book about how they all worked very hard and were rewarded for their hard work.

      Similar to the star wars books cropping out without Luca's permission, she wants to avoid people creating stories and changing her characters. Sounds like she might be a little bit of a control freak, but who can write a seven book series with as little open ends as the Harry Potter series without being one?
    • RyanBlueThunder, on 10/10/2007, -2/+18That was exactly what she was doing, and is completely understandable. She worked on Harry Potter for 17 years. Who wants to see their creation altered without your permission years down the line?
      • aazn, on 10/10/2007, -10/+117? What the ***** are you on?
        • donkeykang, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4She started working on HP from 1990...it's 2007. 2007 - 1990 = 17
  • Khook20, on 10/10/2007, -65/+110She's got to milk every last drop out of this series - she'll probably never have a successful book again
    • Gryffydd, on 10/16/2007, -1/+126I wouldn't care if I were her. She's freaking rich enough to do whatever the hell she wants for the rest of her life.
      • Squinty, on 10/10/2007, -3/+30That was my thought exactly. She doesn't need to even try. Her epic story complete, all she needs to do is play her part in the final two movies and sit on her ass the rest of her life.
      • JustinDavid86, on 10/16/2007, -1/+40Not to mention collect all the royalties from her biography that will be written/filmed on how she used to live in a dumpster.
      • snapple, on 10/10/2007, -2/+7true, she could do that. but it seems to me that she would be more willing to write more books and sell them for charity. She has said before that she might write another book in the series for that reason alone. She's been writing since she was six years old, I'm sure she will continue to write for a long, long time.
        • Disneyisevil50, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3You can only write a book series that sells 360 million (and climbing rapidly now) if you put a lot of work into them, and I think that indicates at least a little bit of enjoyment in your work. So I think she'll return to it.

          Then again she might spend the rest of her life playing minesweeper, her high score on expert is 97 seconds
    • JustinDavid86, on 10/16/2007, -0/+48You say it like it's a knock. Yes, she may never have another successful book again - but that's still after having seven previous ones and 20 billion bucks to boot.
      • Neiby, on 10/10/2007, -0/+16It's silly to think that she won't have another successful book. She'll probably sell hundreds of thousands of her next book because people will be so interested in what she does next. If that flops, then her next book would probably have a huge drop-off. She probably will never write anything that even remotely approaches the popularity of the HP books, though. That's a once in a lifetime thing, if you're lucky.
    • lemon67, on 10/10/2007, -6/+31nah man, anything she writes now will be successful, even if it sucks,
      • lordtyros, on 10/10/2007, -33/+12yeah, look at the Harry Potter series.

        ZING!
        • Smills, on 10/10/2007, -1/+27Yeah, but thing is, that didn't suck.
      • gbarger, on 10/10/2007, -3/+10Yeah, look at M. Night Shamalyan.
      • Disneyisevil50, on 10/10/2007, -8/+1She could draw pictures on 2,300 pages of book with her own feeces, and it would sell 50 million copies. I'd buy it.
    • NeoCortex, on 10/10/2007, -4/+39Actually, she'll likely get one more. The next book she writes will be advertised as "From the creator of Harry Potter", and will have the same pre-sale hype as Potter. Then people will read it, realize it's a pretty average quality, and that'll be it.
    • mattxb, on 10/10/2007, -0/+12Whether or not that is true, your comment sounds like your comparing her to a one hit wonder or something, which I think is pretty off target. As far as I'm concerned, if you can create something so monumentally successful that you're stuck living in the shadow of your own achievements, thats a pretty successful career.
      And it doesn't hurt that years after we are all gone, the Harry Potter series will make more money each year than most of us do our whole lives.
    • Disneyisevil50, on 10/10/2007, -2/+0She has a live chat on Monday and you can submit questions in advance, do you think the question "Are you depressed now that you've peaked and will never ever ever reach the amount of mega popularity you have now again?" was mean?
    • ronaldinho, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1She should retire like Michael Jordan should have had - at the peak of her career
    • Prathik89, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Unless she starts writing under a pseudonym?
  • twrife, on 10/10/2007, -6/+41Of course she won't. Everyone will be looking for the Harry Potter series and when they find something different they will turn a nose to it. I don't want her to write something different, personally.
    • mco5t9, on 10/10/2007, -2/+13She could try writing something using pseudonym.
      • Exbzurg, on 10/10/2007, -2/+9pseudoformers... authors in disguise...
    • AzeemAhmed, on 10/10/2007, -6/+0nah, i wont really bother reading anything other than HP from her.
      we want more hogwarts!
  • darny, on 10/10/2007, -34/+4This article saved me countless dollars and hours I wouldn't have spent anyway reading all of the installments. Thank you NBC.
    • tech42er, on 10/10/2007, -0/+8One word: Wikpedia
    • veoeluz2268, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1countless dollars? well that would give reason as to why you wouldn't have spent time "reading all of the installments," I'd imagine it hard for someone with the inability to count to, at the most, 25, to be able to read a 760 page book...
  • andrewsavage, on 10/10/2007, -29/+3Who's Mr. and Mrs. Longbottom?
    • igraham09, on 10/10/2007, -3/+13Legitimate question; I guess...

      They're Neville's parents, they were tortured into insanity by Bellatrix Lestrange (Sirius' cousin)
    • thegreeneyedkri, on 10/10/2007, -1/+11Neville's parents. The ex Aurors who were tortured and driven crazy. They're in the hospital and that's why he lives with his grandmother.
  • hanexar, on 10/10/2007, -42/+137The epilogue in the book is pure crap. No wonder she is trying to sort it out now.
    • JCSaint, on 10/10/2007, -14/+1Nevermind.
    • Itkovian, on 10/16/2007, -10/+64I thought it was good. Short, and to the point. What would you have wanted?
      • yargthepirate, on 10/10/2007, -2/+11Something besides "after I save the world, I just wanted to settle down and have a bunch of kids."
      • MagikOvenMit, on 10/10/2007, -0/+11Something that didn't sound like some crappy fanfiction. Albus Severus? Hugo? Come on...

        That being said, I was still extremely satisfied with the book.
        • volonix, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1The book was great, i dont think anyone is denying that. However, the epilogue was forced, and basically listed all the ***** she had to get out there. She says the original was 'too neat', then what was this one? Horribly unimaginative and tbh it was a real let down.
          That being said, it didnt tarnish my enjoyment of the book.
    • numberwang, on 10/10/2007, -5/+32I loved the book, but, like you, hated the epilogue. It just felt so cliché, weak and predictable and I can't help feeling that the book would have ended better without it, or maybe without it and with just a little more detail about what happens afterwards within the main story.
      • Disneyisevil50, on 10/10/2007, -2/+0She said she was shooting for foggy, what's foggier than nothing at all?
      • BigCheezy, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4I would also have voted for more of a conclusion to the main story (reunion of Harry and Ginny for one) and then leave the epilogue out entirely.
    • Freonce, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2I thought the epilogue was fine as is...we have to let the characters go, just like she had to. Simple as that.
    • icenineiv, on 10/10/2007, -0/+14The Epilogue could have been batter, but what the book really needed was a come down chapter.
      • MavRevMatt, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7And the batter hits the ball!
        • Jasdar, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6I'm pretty sure he meant that its like an uncooked cake.
      • Disneyisevil50, on 10/10/2007, -4/+1What sort of cake would a batter made from that Epilogue make? ***** cake?
    • Gryffydd, on 10/10/2007, -6/+1I kind of got the feeling she was stoned when she wrote the epilogue.
      • Disneyisevil50, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1She said she wanted to write something that was like looking through a mist.
    • kapsar, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2I agree. I really don't know how his kids could have NO idea that he basically saved the wizarding world. No matter how hard you try to hide it, the kids would find out before they went to hogwarts.
    • phantom42, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1i've got a few friends who are still reading the book, and i've advised them to just skip the epilogue entirely. its unnecessary story put in there just so everyone can have the "happily ever after".
  • totorototoro, on 10/16/2007, -8/+40Actually, the epilogue did read as "nebulous"..and not in a good way :p
    Its a bit odd that after 7 books, she reveals a bunch of new information (not in the books) in an interview with the Today Show..wtf?
    • TheSmiddy, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1the can reveal the information wherever she feels like. because she knows that the people really searching for it will find it.
  • kingraoul3, on 10/10/2007, -26/+5*************************************SPOILER SPOILER********************************************************************************************

    Anyone Else think the ending of the book was horribly confused? We know why Voldemort and Harry have their strange connection, but then there's an extra (totally unneccessary?) reason, so Voldemort's killing curse knocks them both out. THEN, he can't even cast the killing curse against Harry without it rebounding, for a third reason. Seems confused to me.

    All in all though, I think it was the second best book of the series, after "Prisoner of Azkaban".
    • thegreeneyedkri, on 10/10/2007, -1/+32He killed the horcrux in Harry in the woods..but Harry had the Hallows and it did not kill him. The very end, Voldemort couldn't kill him because Harry was actually the owner of the Elder wand and a wand will not attack its owner.
      • geminitojanus, on 10/10/2007, -1/+7I thought Harry only had two of the Hallows (the third being the wand wielded by Voltemort himself), which would not have made him involunerable. Unless the wand won't kill its owner, or Harry got his spell off first, he should have died. I believe the latter is the most likely even to have happened (as the wands often flip end over end when they are Disarmed, and the spell probably just flipped back and hit Voltemort in the face).

        Either way, that scene will look a lot better in a movie than it will in a book.
        • tomi, on 10/10/2007, -0/+16Harry was the owner of the wand.

          Dumbledore was originally the owner, then Draco disarmed him, so the wand was then Draco's [NOT Snape, like Voldemort thought]. In the Malfoy mansion, Harry disarms Draco, making Harry the owner of the Elder wand.

          So technically, he was in ownership of all the Hallows.
        • j0hnglist, on 10/10/2007, -9/+2************* NERD ALERT!!!!!!!! *************
      • inigomntoya, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4Harry dropped the Hallows as he approached Voldemort, so he didn't have their protection. But, he was willing to die, which gave him protection.

        Dumbledore Explains what happens when he meets Harry in the station.

        Then, at the final duel, Harry actually casts a spell to block Voldemort's - which sends Voldemort's killing curse back in his face.

        • kingraoul3, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3I agree with Gemini, I'm pretty sure there's a line in the paragraph describing their final battle which explicitly states that the wand will not attack it's true owner.
          My point was all of the layered reasons that Harry must win the final battle end up confusing. Isn't one enough?
      • acumenprobitas, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7And from what I understand, by dying, Harry gave EVERYONE protection from Voldemort and the Death Eaters much like the protection Harry gained from his mother's sacrifice. Willing death + intention to save people = protection
        • kingraoul3, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1Ok, and now we have a FOURTH reason, with Voldemort no longer able to use Dark Magic, through an unexplained mechanism. I mean I liked the book, but doesn't the very fact that this discussion is this involved prove my point?
      • kingraoul3, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Harry didn't have the Hallows though, and we already know why Voldemort cannot kill Harry. Why do we need the additional reason of him having used Harry's blood to reinstantiate himself with The Sorceror's Stone? Seems uneccessary and confusing.
        • nreynolds, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5he DID have the hallows. He always had the cloak. Dumbledore gave him the stone in the snitch. And he was the owner of the wand after he disarmed Draco.
      • Badnewsbear, on 10/10/2007, -3/+1Uh, Voldemort was never in possession of the Elder Wand, Harry had it the entire time. Just what Tomi said. So I'm not sure where this "the wand will not attack the owner" stuff comes from.

        So with that in mind, the way the spells probably worked, since they were casted at the same time, is that Harry's expelliramus acted as a shield, then most likely from the fact that the Elder Wand is uber powerful, it deflected the Avada Kedavra spell back into Voldemort.
    • rhythmchanges, on 10/10/2007, -3/+4This book should have been called 'Harry Potter and the wondrous world of wands.'
    • Mark7r0n, on 10/10/2007, -0/+13Yeah, I read that whole bit about the wands a few times before I had it sorted out, here is my understanding of it.

      The elder wand could only belong to whoever defeated its previous master. Dumbledore beat that one dude in the duel to get it and Voldemort killed Snape because he thought Snape bested Dumbledore, but Dumbledore had agreed to have Snape kill him so that didn't count as beating Dumbledore. But Draco Malfoy had disarmed Dumbledore that night he died, so Draco was the rightful master of the wand, but when Harry, Ron and Hermione escaped from the Malfoy's manor Harry disarmed Draco and took his wand, which was not the Elder Wand, but since Harry had beat him he was the rightful master of the Elder Wand too. So it did not matter that Voldemort had the "unbeatable" wand as long as he was not the rightful master of it he would never be able to use its full power (the unbeatableness.)

      See it is perfectly clear ;)
      • tech42er, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Didn't Dumbledore say Voldemort couldn't die because he had some of Harry's blood in him, which offered Lily's protection? I didn't understand that part.
        • kingraoul3, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Precisely my point.
        • Badnewsbear, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1When Voldemort tried to hill Harry as a baby and Lily sacrificed herself for Harry, she casted a protective shield, as it were. Now, when they get to the very last bit of it all, Voldemort made the mistake of taking Harry's blood to recreate his body. It also didn't help that the last Horcrux was Harry himself, meaning a piece of Voldemort was lodged inside Harry.

          There was nothing about Voldemort couldn't die because Harry's blood in him, it's more of a...they were both equally matched that while there was still a bit of each other in both people, trying to kill one or the other would fail. So in the end, when Voldemort destroyed the piece of his soul that resided in Harry, that along with Harry's willingness to sacrifice himself broke any link they had to each other. Before that, it was pretty much impossible to kill each other.
    • Disneyisevil50, on 10/10/2007, -1/+0Wow, you all have it wrong, Harry lived because Voldemort took his blood, nothing to do with the Hallows. Harry's blood in Voldemort was like a horcrux, because it had Lily's protection in it, so it tied Harry to life.
      • m1a2c2kali, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0disney is correct on that point...Harry was not protected by the hallows because he dropped the resurrection stone on his way thru the forest and plus he did not want to be the master of death
  • drewfer, on 10/16/2007, -11/+65Not reading the books and just watching the movies from time to time is robbing yourself from the story. Just run down to the bookstore, plop down 15 bucks and treat yourself to a good story.
    • JCSaint, on 10/16/2007, -1/+35Hell, or go to the library.
    • jonnyeh, on 10/10/2007, -9/+4Seven books costs way more than $15. The latest book is MSRP $45 CAD.
      • tomi, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3Yet I bought it for $25 at London Drugs...
      • Smills, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2Holy *****! You Canadians are paying that? It cost me only $27.50 AUD from Target...
      • nogami, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Nobody ever pays MRSP, but the label is nice and high so that people think they're getting a great deal if it's "on sale" for a lower price.

        BTW: $23.75 at Costco.
      • KnytFyre, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Wally world in the US is @ 18.95
    • Aadain, on 10/10/2007, -1/+9Actually, it was $8.99 at Borders for the first book. Finally decided to break down and read the books since everyone and their grandchild has read it and loves it. I've only seen the movies up to this point.
    • Yuo122986, on 10/10/2007, -15/+5But why read Harry Potter when there are so many more intelligent, educational and fun books to read: Farenheit 451, To Kill A Mockingbird, The Giver, Wrinkle in Time..... (sigh).... digg me down :(
      • Dwarfthemike, on 10/10/2007, -3/+18to kill a mockingbird is not a fun book. you are crazy.
      • ishwarchand, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3Are you a Seer? how did you know you would be dugg down.
      • darkamster07, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3just because they are good books with powerful meaning dosen't necesarily mean they are fun to read, one of the draws of harry potter is that the writing style is simple, get good, and it flows well
      • luigi1015, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Please read the books before you make these kind of blanket assumptions about them. Granted, the first two or three books are simpler than the rest, but that's because J. K. Rowling wanted readers to start young (around the age of Harry) and grow with the books as she wrote them. The last three or four books are very intelligent, even compared to "adult" books like Fahrenheit 451. I mean, popular and meant for kids doesn't mean stupid tripe.
        • TheNuminous, on 10/10/2007, -1/+0I think you're confusing verbosity with intelligence. In the final books, Rowling uses a more difficult vocabulary, but that hardly makes her a great writer, or even a good writer. She is an excellent storyteller, and that's why the Harry Potter books have sold so well.
          • luigi1015, on 11/19/2007, -1/+1No I'm not confusing verbosity with intelligence. The final couple books have a greater emotional and moral depth for the characters and have a more complex plot than the first couple books. Good examples would be how Voldemort, Snape, and Dumbledore have evolved from simple 1 dimensional characters in the first book to more complex characters with more realistic motivations in the last book.
    • greenblob, on 10/10/2007, -1/+9Or you could go to the bookstore, read it, and leave.
      • MadOtaku, on 10/10/2007, -1/+10But that might set off the alarm. (How many of you read XKCD?)
        • tomi, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2You have a book in your brain, don't you?
    • lexington86, on 10/10/2007, -6/+2.....no.
  • Zyphron, on 10/10/2007, -7/+32What she is doing now (at least if she does eventually write it down) is really no different than Tolkien with the Silmarillion.

    And as for another success, I doubt that she will have another blockbuster hit...most people are lucky to get one of them in a lifetime (much less 7...) but that does not mean any future novels would be failures. I would imagine they would just be good to average, which describes a large percentage of the books released today.
    • joethedouchebag, on 10/10/2007, -2/+11Tolkien wrote early versions of the Silmarillion before he ever wrote The Hobbit or The Lord of the Rings. Publishing companies kept turning him down though because it was too boring. Also, when it was finally published it was after his death, and was compiled by his son. So, no, what she is doing is not what Tolkien did with the Silmarillion.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Silmarillion
    • MOJIRA, on 05/17/2008, -1/+4It would be great if the encyclopedia she's talking about is and appendix or a series of short stories loosely linked like the Silmarillion. I hope it's not an actual encyclopedia.
    • kapsar, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Joe is right. This is nothing like the Silmarillion. That book was never intended to be published. It was published after his death by his son... the same one that just released the new book.
      I really felt that compared to Tolkien this series was rather empty of a good back story, that felt like it has thousands of years of history too it. Yes she was able to use the myths we all know rather easily, but to me it always felt forced.
  • timusca, on 10/10/2007, -21/+2"So if you've haven't finished the book, J.K. Rowling asks that you not read this story"

    What if you don't give a damn what happens but are interested in the article? She doesn't address us!
    • Battleloser, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6Why would you be reading if you don't care about the story? O_o
      • j0hnglist, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1some of us want to find out the ending to guarantee we wont waste time on it in the future. i know i dont wanna be hooked to a 7 book series about kid wizards lol.
        now you may bury away.
    • JCSaint, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4Most people wouldn't be interested in the article if they haven't read Potter.
    • kazamx, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Why would you want to read the article?
  • JordanM85, on 10/10/2007, -13/+7Instead of having to do this nonsense...Why not just end the story properly, in the actual book.
  • macguy815, on 10/10/2007, -8/+1She could always go work for Disney, and start making a straight-to-paperback spinoff series. Sure it would be crap, but hey it would sell by the millions!
    • jmpeagle, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5yeah, but it would just be that ...millions. She's a billionaire and the only author to ever be so. She could make over 50 million a year just from interest on a savings account.
  • letdowntourist, on 10/10/2007, -17/+54just someone explain to me how neville got the sword of gryffindor from the goblin.
    • totorototoro, on 10/10/2007, -0/+19Yeah, I wondered about that too.
      I think it was an echo of what happened in the 2nd book, when Harry found the sword in the sorting hat, to, not-so-coincidentally, kill that giant snake?
      The sword recognizes a true scion of House Gryffindor, and can be magically found by one?
      • DorkmasterFlek, on 10/10/2007, -1/+22It's the same thing that Harry did in the second book. He pulled the sword from the Sorting Hat the exact same way Neville did at the end of this book. The hat recognized both Harry and Neville as true Gryffindors and allowed them to retrieve the sword. The goblin is probably pretty pissed about that. :)
        • MacParrot, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5Remember also that it was revealed that Neville could have been the one that Trelawny's Prophesy was about. That it was Voldemort choosing Harry that made it about him.
        • otaking, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1If I remember correctly, the sorting hat was destroyed though. It didn't mention WHERE THE HELL IT CAME FROM or WHERE he drew the sword from.
          • Terr01, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Maybe while it was still on fire? I'm not sure if it was even actually destroyed.
          • radda, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6Voldemort's spells weren't sticking because the Elder Wand wasn't rightfully his, so the fire he conjured probably wasn't enough to destroy something as magical as the Sorting Hat. Remember the Silencing Charm he cast on the mob and the Body Bind that he cast on Nevile not working for long?
          • m1a2c2kali, on 10/10/2007, -1/+0i thought that it was b/c harry sacrificed himself like his mom so everybody was protected....the elder wand can still kill

            remember snape?
          • ChessPieceFace, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2@m1a2c2kall Snape was killed by Nagini not the wand.
    • johnhummel, on 10/10/2007, -23/+1I'm going to digg you down only because you revealed a spoiler. That said - I have no idea, and neither does anyone else. Call it a plot hole.
      • JCSaint, on 10/10/2007, -0/+22Is anyone here dumb enough to read this thread without expecting spoilers?
    • JCSaint, on 10/10/2007, -2/+14It's magic!
    • Lasereth, on 10/16/2007, -0/+80Uhh...it's stated clearly in the second book that a true Gryffindor will yield the sword from the Sorting Hat when in desperate need of it. This was harped upon and repeated numerous times in the other books as well. The sword appears to Neville who is an honest, true Gryffindor, just as it did for Harry in Chamber of Secrets fighting the Basilisk. It's not a plot hole, it's actually a really cool plot crossover from the second novel.
      • polyphonic, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7also it's kind of a wink to the whole "pulling a rabbit out of a hat" archetype of a magician
        • MOJIRA, on 05/17/2008, -5/+3I've always loved that Ava Kedavra sounds like and is so similar to Abra Kadabra. Now that's a cool parallel.
      • otaking, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1I wrote this in a comment above but I really need an answer so...help me out.

        If I remember correctly, the sorting hat was destroyed though. It didn't mention WHERE THE HELL IT CAME FROM or WHERE he drew the sword from.
        • lymerae, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Here's what happens... Voldemort tries to punish Neville by putting him in a full-body bind, placing the sorting hat on his head, and setting the hat on fire. However, Neville, obviously in great need and having just commited a highly heroic act (defying Voldemort's takeover of Hogwarts), was able to pull the sword from the hat before it burned beyond repair. The full-body bind that Voldemort had previously put on Neville failed, because (as Harry explains later) since Harry died to protect all his friends in the castle, Voldemort is not able to hurt any of them or cast lasting spells upon them, similar to the protection Harry's mom gave him. The sorting hat is obviously fine in the end, because they're talking about being sorted by the hat in the epilogue. It survived the burning and is now back to its normal job.
          Jo didn't explicitly go over most of this in the narrative because it's pretty obvious if you think about it, and also because her characters are in the middle of a mad battle and they don't have time to notice details.
          The sword answered to the need of a true Gryffindor wearing the sorting hat, rather than staying with Griphook, because Gryffindor's original ownership of the sword was actually legitimate and Gryffindor students have more of a claim to it than any goblin.
      • blacklint, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I don't think the sorting hat was actually destroyed, just set on fire (i'm too lazy to reread the passage). I do remember it being mentioned in the epilogue, where IIRC Harry was telling Albus Severus that the hat takes your feelings into account. So, not destroyed.
    • Itkovian, on 10/10/2007, -2/+19IMO, the sword went back to the hat. And Neville, being a Gryffindor can pull it out. Perhaps Gryffindor knew how goblins felt about stuff they made and charmed both sword and hat to be reunited should it be stolen by goblins?
      • tomi, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1Wasn't the sword in Dumbledore's office when Harry pulled it out?
      • drachemorder, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6Or maybe it proves that the goblin idea of ownership is wrong --- the sword truly belonged to Gryffindor in every meaningful sense, therefore it responded to Neville's need because he truly had the right to it.
    • LaughingDjinn, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6the whole legend of the sword was the it comes to a member of the house in times of need, he pulled it out of the sorting hat just like Harry did in whatever book that was (chamber of secrets I think)
    • AzeemAhmed, on 10/16/2007, -0/+69sucks for the goblin eh?

      went to all that trouble and got jacked by a hat.
    • jpop, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3Yeah, considering how much they were harping on the "goblins think you're just renting their property and not buying it", I didn't see how it'd let the sword just get away like that. That said, it was also sort of foreshadowed when Harry singled out Neville to let him know "the snake needs to die" in case harry, hermione, and ron aren't able to do it.

      Incidentally, I haven't read the other books, so this and the wand part kinda stuck out for me.
  • lms21, on 10/16/2007, -7/+118I still want to know why Harry didn't name any of his kids Sirius?
    • srfrogger, on 10/10/2007, -16/+0I know! He names the kid after someone who wanted him dead (Albus), but not the person he loved the most. personally, I thought the last book sucked.
      • tomi, on 10/10/2007, -0/+8I don't think Albus wanted him dead...
      • Epik, on 10/10/2007, -0/+14Why do you think Albus wanted him dead? I think you should re-read the book, slower, perhaps.

        James and Albus. I think the reason is, it would be weird for him to call his son Sirius. He had called Sirius Sirius plenty of times when Sirius was alive. He never spoke to his dad and called him James obviously. And he never called Dumbledore Albus. He had enough of a detachment from those two names for him to not find it weird and for the names to truly become his boys instead of always seeing Sirius when he called out the name.
    • DRock4776, on 10/10/2007, -10/+4Didn't one of the kids have Sirius as a middle name?
    • j4nj1m3n3z, on 10/16/2007, -0/+84just wait, him and ginny aren't done yet hah
      • MOJIRA, on 05/17/2008, -0/+27Harry begins to perspire as he sit on the edge of the bed. Ginny approaches him and says, "Bow chicka wow ow!"
        • esotericguy, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3DAMN!
          i logged in just to digg u up!
      • tech42er, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2:)
      • BadassCheese, on 10/16/2007, -1/+38Harry puts on his robe and wizzar hat.
    • cmscott, on 10/10/2007, -0/+36I guess you probably just have to assume that his other son's name is James Sirius Potter...or something.
    • monka, on 10/16/2007, -1/+39Personally I would've liked one of the kids to be named Fred (at least as a middle name). What's up with Ginny letting Harry reserve all the kids' names for specifically HIS lost loved ones? meh
      • nreynolds, on 10/16/2007, -0/+30because she knows the series is called "Harry Potter and the - "
      • MavRevMatt, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Because it's sexist and what not. At least that's what the feminists say.
        • tech42er, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1"It should have been titled 'Ginny Weasley and the Deathly Hallows', damnit! The patriarchy is keeping us down with their subtly male supremacist book titles!"
      • TheDragonTony, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Perhaps they left naming a child Fred for George if he ever had kids, or Ron, or Percy, or Bill...
    • manova, on 10/10/2007, -2/+13I wanted to know why all of the kids were named for people that were important mainly to Harry and not Ginny. Not often the father gets to pick all three children's names.
      • monka, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2James Fred Potter?
      • yargthepirate, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1probably because ginny has 1 million people in her family, so there's not much point in naming the kids after family members
    • SLYK, on 10/10/2007, -4/+3He had a fourth, unmentioned kid named XM.

      I kid, I kid.
    • polalion, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Sirius, like all the other members of the Black family, were named after stars.

      I'd like to think it's a Black tradition and really, nobody loved his family more than Dumbledore and Snape.
    • keozen, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4If he names the next one sirius will he name the one after that "Dobby"
      • KyndCulture, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I think Hedwig Madeye Dobby Tonks et al Potter works for me.
  • n3demonic, on 10/10/2007, -12/+4

    I didn't really think the book was that good, personally. She could have done much better story line wise. The epilogue could have been longer and cleaned up the missing pieces. I'd rather not jump 20 years into the future when I want to know what happened to everyone in the aftermath. The whole forest hiding scenes were pretty lame and could have been 1000x better. The child characters were all bumbling retards except for Hermione. The personalities of the adults weren't that unique to each other (e.g.You could switch characters around without noticing they were acting differently).
    • Lasereth, on 10/10/2007, -11/+2I agree. Definitely the weakest book in the series, especially after the freaking incredible writing in book six.
    • acumenprobitas, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6I wouldn't mind a book detailing what happened at Hogwarts during this time, rather than having a quick retelling from Neville and Luna
      • otaking, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2More oppression like book 5. It'd get boring fast.
  • ghall, on 10/10/2007, -4/+17@Ims21 I was wondering that as well.

    I hope JK does write some sort of encyclopedia. As I die-hard Harry Potter fan, I want to know more. I was definitely not satisfied with the epilogue.
  • shadowspawn, on 10/10/2007, -6/+1There's already a few books that go more into detail about some things. They are written by others, sorta like "Thieves World" (which I got my nick from), where other authors take different characters and make many short stories. They will never become public, but they are pretty cool anyhow.
  • Lugano, on 10/16/2007, -5/+51I personally hope that she writes "Hogwarts, A History". I like the future being left open ended, but I would love to know more about the founders and the rest of the back story. There is a lot left to be explored. Thank goodness for the talented Fan Fiction writers out there (not the lame ones that just want to see Draco and Harry...) but the few good ones that I know will take the ending of DH and write some great stuff :)
    • Epik, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4That's a pretty good idea. There are some books mentioned throughout the series many times. I'm sure someone will take advantage and publish them. Hopefully Rowling herself.
    • PommyBrit, on 10/10/2007, -2/+0Who are these amazingly talented fan-fic writers?
    • darkamster07, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1someone already (pre-DH) already wrote an ENTIRE 7th book, all fan-fic, and I hear it is actually pretty good:
      http://www.fictionalley.org/authors/melindaleo2000/TSH.html
      (I havent read more than a few pages, but now that I have heard some good stuff and have finished DH, I will)
      • aazn, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Wow what a brilliant idea -- Write a book that's already been published except get the story wrong.

        Why didn't that guy just write an 8th book??
  • alexanEmpire, on 10/10/2007, -19/+5Doesn't Hermione get date raped by Ron Weasley?

    I thought there was going to be a date rape sence in this book....in a chapter titled "The Bloody Cloak".
  • karthickdoss, on 10/10/2007, -11/+2She should have written this in the book...why now? Publicity stunt?
    • ArtificialAnus, on 10/10/2007, -2/+9Publicity stunts happen - by definition - when you need to get publicity. There's no way she could ever want more than she's got now. Therefore no... you're wrong.
    • tomi, on 10/10/2007, -1/+10“But it didn’t work very well as a piece of writing,” Rowling said. “It felt very much that I had crowbarred in every bit of information I could … In a novel you have to resist the urge to tell everything.”

      RTFA.
  • Senseless, on 10/10/2007, -9/+3Spoiler Warning!!

    I think she probably suffered a long lasting mind #%(@ trying to decide just how to end the series without making her fans rabid haters, which they would have been if she had killed Harry, Hermione, or Ron. What happened to the "2 major characters dying" .. anyway, I enjoyed all of the books greatly, but as a long time fan of Fantasy, long ago recognized that she has stolen countless archetypes and plots from many famous past books. I give her props for meshing them and rewriting them in a story that is fresh and entertaining, but I'm not surprised she couldn't come up with a better ending. Her epilogue now, ifwhen she revises it, and including any encyclopedia, will never touch the creativity and detail that went into Tolkien's works. She ain't got the chops...
    • Mark7r0n, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4Dude any great story works of the same archetypes that have made great stories for literally thousands of years.
    • icenineiv, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4I like LOTR, but as far as endings go Tolkien went the exact other way and had an ending that took forever, plus a timeline that showed what every character did until they died. So, in that way, LOTR had a ***** ending as well.
  • cam2009, on 10/10/2007, -3/+9I was watching this this morning on the Today show. I've finished, but no one else in the room with me had, and they don't give any kind of spoiler warning. Usually I don't care when there's light hinting, but she basically gave away the Snape thing, and told everyone the 3 people most suspected to die didn't. There were some unhappy people in the room with me.

    Anyway, about the ending and epilogue - she said she wrote that part first, right after the 6th book. That's why the style is off from the rest. Definitely doesn't fit, and the epilogue is much better left to the imagination. She should have cut it off after the shock of the last couple chapters wore off. I'd rather leave with something epic than supposed big surprises like finding out their future kids' middle names. Did more bad than good.
    • kmt1015, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6Well, Rowling has been pretty nice in alot of her interviews, trying to be as vague as she can, but at the same time, the people who have read the books all ready want to know what she has to say about the characters and about the storyline. And, as it has been almost a week since the book came out, I would hope to think that people realize she will be talking about major parts of the book, and that people shouldn't have watched the interview if they haven't read the book. I warned a friend of mine that if he wanted to watch the interview he should DEF finish the book first.

      And about the epilogue, she said she wrote it while she writing the 3rd book. And in this article anyway, she wanted it to be vague. I think people weren't going to be happy with an epilogue anyway, because no matter what she would have put, she wouldn't have told as much as people wanted to know of the characters 1-20 years later. And it is just not possible to put so much information into a short epilogue, without it coming off as names just thrown in. Hence, the point of an encyclopedia.
  • WickerMan601, on 10/10/2007, -20/+0Harry Potter sucks now and will still suck when the inevitable 8th book comes out.
    • Zachari, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6That's awesome man. We're all proud of your intelligent comment. Please go back to reading C++ For Dummies, and leave us alone.
  • staxofmax, on 10/10/2007, -11/+2Who is Harry Potter? Wasn't he a character on M.A.S.H?
  • jarnet, on 10/10/2007, -6/+3Before this was posted I had a bag of hate directed towards the epilogue and some of the writing and plot holes but after reading it there's only one thing in my mind and that's how in the hell did McGonagall not make headmistress. That angers me.
    • Neiby, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7Maybe I need to re-read the article but it sounded like McGonagall did make headmistress, but only for a while and was not the headmistress at the time of the epilogue. It would make total sense for her to become headmistress, but I guess she didn't do it for long.
      • tech42er, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2She said McGonagall became headmistress, but sh was "getting on" by the time of the epilogue, so it's someone new.
    • jpop, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Perhaps she didn't want it? I mean, how many classes did Dumbledore teach? Also, perhaps she didn't want to deal with the politics of the position...
    • darkamster07, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4ummmm... shes pretty *****' old, I'm sure she wanted to retire or something
    • Terr01, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5I thought some of the deaths during the Battle of Hogwarts were almost like plot holes. "What, Lupin and Tonks are dead? WTF?" (flips pages looking for scene)

      AFAIK it's just stated as if it already happened and it may have been at Dolohov's hands, but it's plot-hole-esque and made me wonder if I'd skipped a page somewhere.
  • HanSolo69, on 10/10/2007, -8/+1If I have have not finished the book????? I'm confused!!!! should i read this or not???!?!?!?!!?!?
    • tank_47, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4Don't !
    • DigMyNose, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1No, you shouldn't.. ?!!!!!!?!?!??!?!???????????????????!?!?!?!? ?! !
    • jenhorne, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5lol...if you haven't finished the book, you shouldn't be poking around on Digg. TURN OFF YOUR COMPUTER AND READ!!!!!!!!
    • Neiby, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3No, you shouldn't. In fact, you shouldn't even be reading these comments. There are way too many spoilers here.
    • kjm16, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Screw them, go ahead!
  • blinkgreen, on 10/16/2007, -1/+60Is it just me, or does anyone want to know what happened to George?????
    • Mark7r0n, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6I thought that was strange he was left out too. I guess we are to assume he continued being successful with the joke shop?
      • anonym41414, on 10/16/2007, -1/+0I thought there was some off-handed mention or other in the epilogue about somebody eating a Puking Pastie.
    • Terr01, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6I think one of the weakest parts of the book was keeping track of all that stuff. I mean, Lupin died when exactly? Etc.
      • thegreeneyedkri, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3I know, I hated that she just threw it out there quickly that both Lupin and Tonks were dead.
        (Although I figured Lupin was dead when they had said earlier he was dueling Dolohov and then Dolohov was later seen dueling someone else)
  • modad, on 10/10/2007, -6/+5I'd be more interested in her next entry in the series: Harry Potter and the Deus Ex Machina
    • ishwarchand, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Why, why would you write right after that amazing ***** u had.
    • worseforwine, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1exactly what I was thinking the whole time reading book 7 Harry Potter and the Deus Ex Machina!! I'm so glad someone else thought that
    • Terr01, on 10/10/2007, -6/+2Bob Page: Your appointment to the Ministry should be finalized within the week. I've already discussed the matter with our Wizengamot friend.

      Walton Simons : I take it he was agreeable?

      Bob Page: Imperius'ed? He didn't really have a choice.

      Walton Simons : Has he been infected?

      Bob Page: Oh yes. Most certainly. But when I mentioned we could put him on the priority list for the Phoenix tears, he was so willing it was almost pathetic.

      Walton Simons: This plague... the rioting is intensifying to the point where we may not be able to contain it.

      Bob Page: Why contain it? Let it spill over the alleys and shops, let the bodies pile up in the streets. In the end they'll beg us to save them.

      Walton Simons: I've received reports of spelled attacks on shipments. There's not enough vaccine to go around, and the muggles are starting to get desperate.

      Bob Page: Of course they're desperate; they can smell their deaths, and the sound they'll make rattling their cages will serve as a warning to the rest.

      Walton Simons: Mmm. I hope you're not underestimating the problem. The others may not go as quietly as you think -- intelligence indicates they're behind the problems in Paris.

      Bob Page: A bunch of pretentious old men playing at running the world. But the world left them behind long ago. We are the future.

      Walton Simons : We have other problems.

      Bob Page: The order of the phoenix?

      Walton Simons : Formed by High Warlock order after the strike on the Statue. I have someone in place though. I'm more concerned about Severus. He's relocated to Vandenberg.

      Bob Page: Our potion corpus is far in advance of theirs, as is our magical sentience, and their... 'ethical inflexibility' has allowed us to make progress in areas they refuse to consider.

      Walton Simons : The transfiguration project?

      Bob Page: Among others things. But, I must admit, I've been somewhat disappointed with the performance of the primary unit.

      Walton Simons : The secondary unit should be online soon. He's currently undergoing preparations and should be operational within six months. My people will continue to report on his progress. If necessary, the primary will be terminated.

      Bob Page: We've had to endure much, you and I, but soon there will be order again. A new age. The Dark Lord spoke of the mythical pureblood city on the hill, soon that city will be a reality and we will be crowned its kings. Or, better than kings... gods!"
  • pnoyprd, on 10/10/2007, -4/+4Yes the ending was blurry, but I thought it was the perfect ending. Very peaceful and emotional. Wish I could know what happens later on.
  • MikeyBillz, on 10/10/2007, -10/+1Nerds of the world...UNITE!!!
  • my10cent, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4"She might never have another success book again" Are you kidding me? you know very well that every single Potter Fan out there would buy her next book, regardless if it sucks or not. And should she choose to write another book series I bet you Hollywood would pick it up unseen just because it comes from her. J.K Rowling = Good Books and BlockBusters.

  • goldenratiophi, on 10/10/2007, -9/+4In short: all the surviving characters are totally happy at Hogwarts and have kids who are totally happy at Hogwarts.

    And, uh, SPOILER ALERT!
  • nanite1018, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7I really liked the epilogue. I mean, I would love to have all their books and stuff from the series, and a book all about their future and stuff. I think pretty much all fans do. But for an ending to the series proper, I felt the ending of DH and the epilogue were great. The epilogue she describes (filled with a ton of information about the future and everything) would have been great, and I hope we get to read it someday. But it seems like it would be impossible to have the poetic note of the published epilogue if you were going to put that much detail in it. Its great just the way it is, a beautiful ending to a very dark epic story.

    Although I really do want that original epilogue, she should include it in the encyclopedia! I'll be waiting with baited breath Mrs. Rowling!
  • HedwigDies, on 10/10/2007, -1/+7The thing I wonder the most about is what's the next pet Harry gets.
  • liv3fr33ordi3, on 10/16/2007, -2/+28Ginny is hot
  • Arkonnan, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3Now if we could only get David Chase to spill the beans about the ending to The Sopranos. ;p
  • jhshukla, on 10/10/2007, -3/+10screw the epilogue. not that it matters at the end but some pieces of the puzzle are still missing.
    1. how did James and Lily get filthy rich? did they earn or inherit the wealth?
    2. when Dursleys were about to kick Harry out of their house in 5th book, Petunia got a letter from someone: "remember my last". who was that letter from?
    add to the list if you can think of more.
    • guardianzero, on 10/10/2007, -0/+10The letter was from dumbledore referring to the letter that arrived with harry when he was placed on Petunia's doorstep. That was the last letter dumbledore addressed to petunia. "Remember my last"means remember my letter and that means to not kick harry out of the home.
    • TheUberDork, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6*SPOILER*

      1. James are descendants of a very old wizarding family I would venture a guess at Harry's father inherited most of his wealth and passed it down as the generations before him seemed to do with a certain cloak. also they mention in the 7th book how someone with an invisible cloak should be rich. Which makes sense if Dumbledore's suspicions are true and the original owner of the cloak was a dark wizard and all.

      2. they explained this in the 6th book, it was from Dumbledore.
    • tjrc, on 10/10/2007, -0/+10>> 1. how did James and Lily get filthy rich? did they earn or inherit the wealth?

      Good insurance policy without that pesky "zapped by evil wizard" clause.
      • aazn, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1Hahaha I'm surprised you didn't get more diggs for that, that was a ***** funny comment.
    • Sucat, on 10/10/2007, -0/+11.) Even if they had a small amount of money saved up a decade worth of interest should triple it. And then that doubled while Harry grew up since he barely touched it.
      • TheSmiddy, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4lets be generous and give them 8%

        1000 x 1.08^10 = 2158.92

        LIES!!! it will only double!!
    • Terr01, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6Remember Harry's vault?

      Plus, consider the endorsement and merchandizing possibilities! "Official Harry Potter Patronus Night-Light"...
    • Parkinsons, on 10/10/2007, -3/+0Thats what you want to know? I want to know how dumbledore got the elder wand if the owner cannot loose in a duel? or how come Avada Kedavra the "unblockable" curse was blocked twice in the book. I also want to know why it was decided to put the deathly hallows in the book, they served no point whatsoever.
      • aazn, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4Well:

        1) If you even read the 7th book, he overpowered Grindelwald because he pwned that noob.
        2) It wasn't "blocked", it was absorbed by something else.
        3) Did you even read the book?
        • Parkinsons, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0Yes a read it. Grindelwald was close to dumbledore's strength without the wand. Didn't she say the wand makes you unbeatable in a duel? so even if it was harry vs dumbledore the one with the elder wand will win every time. it was once blocked by a stun spell and once by a disarming spell... and it was blocked many other times in the other books, it was blocked by the fountain in the ministry a few times.

          I just don't like how she changes her rules all the time.
  • cyberflas, on 10/16/2007, -56/+2you are all fags. read a book that's not for 10 year olds...
    • Disneyisevil50, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5There are no pieces of fiction for age groups, just pieces of fiction for whoever enjoys it. Literature for older people is just a term the close-minded, arrogant, and idiotic use
  • Saroen, on 10/10/2007, -2/+27@cyberflas
    "you are all fags. read a book that's not for 10 year olds..."

    Umm.....if you picked up a single book after the second one (or a single book in general) you would know that they were not intended for 10 year olds, the first two began as childrens books but took a dramatic turn from the prizoner of azkaban onward; to state that the 7th book was for a 10 year old is ridiculous. I would digg you down for having one of the stupidest comments i've ever read, however i can no longer find your reply on this list.
    • Immij, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2It's the one directly above yours ;)
    • darkamster07, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3yeah, I would never recomend the 7th book to a kid, especially if that kid is a harry potter fan, it is so cut-throat and tragic
    • otaking, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4SPOILER

      the book has "BITCH" written in it. Clearly that's not appropriate for 10yr olds (in America...where everything is bloody censored.)
    • VamptVo, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0Amen to that. They started as kid's books, but they definitely got more mature. The seventh was in no way for children. Definitely PG-13 (in movie terms)
  • PommyBrit, on 10/10/2007, -6/+1That epilogue was a piece of *****. And even the rest of the book wasn't up to par.
    • Prokaryote, on 10/10/2007, -3/+1Pretty much. The first 600 pages were utter crap.
    • aazn, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3You're a piece of *****. You probably don't make par on a mini-golf course.
  • TheUberDork, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2I kind of figured as much... about teddy and all that. it was good closure as it was. if she wants to go into more detail maybe she should write more books based on the world of harry potter...
  • ncaa76, on 10/10/2007, -3/+1why is the site down?? Anyone got any cache?
  • darkamster07, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4best part: harry and dumbledore in the semi-afterlife
    • Jaakob, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Who/what was that body twitching on the floor while they talked?
      • shadowswordth, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6*SPOILER*

        Voldemort.
        • inigomntoya, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5Voldemort's Horcrux from the scar in harry's head - to be exact
    • Disneyisevil50, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1To be more specific Voldemorts soul
    • Parkinsons, on 10/10/2007, -4/+2That was the worst part. Harry should of died, she was too must of a pussy to kill any of the main charactors.
      • nobogeys217, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2What? Fred, Lupin, and Tonks died. They're pretty close to main characters.
        • Parkinsons, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1who cared about any of those characters? George is still around so Fred is no loss, Lupin has little to no character development and tonks was not even introduced until the 5th book. The main characters are the three kids.
  • tiny40505, on 10/10/2007, -7/+2I would have loved if towards the end of the epiloge. Insteed of saying "His scare hadn't prickled for 19 years." I would have *****, if it said. "Harry bent down to shoo Albus off when he felt a slit stink at the edge of his scare. Blowing it off as nothing, he showed his children to the train." That would have made the book alot less boring to read that at the end and go..."O_O Nu uh"
    • thereallos, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2"a slit stink " you say? how entirely unsavoury ....
  • cambob76, on 10/10/2007, -7/+2Who the ***** is Harry Potter?
    • rainbowjinjo, on 10/10/2007, -3/+1Dunno, he doesn't have an iPhone.
  • petemcfraser, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5I think she took some tips from George Lucas.
  • wildskanker09, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Does this epilogue kind of remind anyone of Shadowrun? Put out something that needs major fleshing out and keep having people pay for it (or not just to keep their attention focused). Whatever happened to finishing a novel and being done? Maybe some readers, myself particularly, would rather come up with their own 18 years later scenario. As you can tell I wasn't a huge fan of the epilogue.
    • nanite1018, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0Lots of books have epilogues. Besides, without it, a lot of stuff would have been wide-open. How's Ginny-Harry and Ron-Hermione turn out for example? I see your point about maybe people wanted to make it up themselves, but people seem to be doing that anyway (on fanfiction.net at least). No one pays for the epilogue btw, its in the book. Or do you mean the new stuff, extra information about what happens later and stuff? If thats the case, it would be impossible. This is the best method I think. Keep integrity in the book series and don't turn it into a history their families at the end, but instead have a poetic ending. Then right an encyclopedia that answers all the questions we still have about the past, and the future.
  • Typhoon2009, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6Harry Potter: Episode 1?
  • 2point71, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1@typhoon2009
    lawlz.
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 69 of 69 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.