[Accygirl]

It was pretty good up until pg 704 and then J.K. tacked on three needless chapters. Since I was a good girl and didn’t look at spoilers, I was crying when Harry walked to his death. But then J.K. Rowlings went soft on me and didn’t do what she was foreshadowing throughout the book. IMO, it would have been much more interesting and had greater emotional impact if she had kept Harry dead. The Epilogue was a pure cop-out.

I also agree with you.. not enough time at Hogwarts and that the book kinda dragged in the middle. But it had some very, very good scenes led of course by The Forest Again.

[Elyse]

It was pretty good up until pg 704 and then J.K. tacked on three needless chapters. Since I was a good girl and didn’t look at spoilers, I was crying when Harry walked to his death. But then J.K. Rowlings went soft on me and didn’t do what she was foreshadowing throughout the book. IMO, it would have been much more interesting and had greater emotional impact if she had kept Harry dead. The Epilogue was a pure cop-out.

Reading the thread before your post, I was beginning to think I was the only one that felt this way. It was so sad, but I thought she was working on the perfect ending and that the rest of the book would be Ron, Hermoine and Neville working together to finish off Valdemort. But instead it was, oh nevermind, let me give you a sappy ending. It really disappointed me.

[JenB]

Hmmm, well, as a Christian I saw those last three chapters as necessary. Because it became obvious in this book that Harry is a Christ-figure, and Christ-figures die for their people but are resurrected...

[Corin Stormhands]

IMO, it would have been much more interesting and had greater emotional impact if she had kept Harry dead.

Let's not forget, however, that these books are written for children.

My theory all along has been that she wouldn't kill Harry off for that reason.

[Tanniker Smith]

IMO, it would have been much more interesting and had greater emotional impact if she had kept Harry dead.

But then Harry couldn't kill Voldemort. Go back to the prophecy, one must die at the hand of the other, not that they must kill each other. (And I didn't go for that talk that "the other" actually refered to a third person.)

I wouldn't have been happy if Dumbledore had actually been raising Harry to be a lamb to be led to the slaughter. But, apparently, he acted similar to another Lamb that I could think of, but won't mention in case the Fundamentalists are reading this thread. ;-)

[kevkrom]

IMO, it would have been much more interesting and had greater emotional impact if she had kept Harry dead.

No offense, but that's ridiculous. The scene in "King's Cross" is essential -- it is the final chance to explain the unresolved threads and to finally get the whole, entire truth. After that, it would be anti-climactic for Harry to simply die, so he is given the choice instead: die, lay down your burdens, and move on to what lies ahead, or go back, fight, endure pain and humiliation.

And there's only one way that the Harry Potter that has been developed over 7 books could possibly answer that call.