Some responses to things discussed in this thread:
Teta, I cannot believe you skipped to the end. That is very strange indeed. I have also never seen, in pages of online reactions to the book, anyone interpret Rita Skeeter's slandar as anything more than that (well, would it technically be libel?) and never anyone read it into the scene at King's Cross. Uh....I don't really know how to react beyond to say, Rita Skeeter is full of lies and King's Cross was a confusing scene but not because it implied sexual impropriety.
Other than confidence that Harry's nakedness and warm clother were not an indication of sexual abuse, I am a bit undecided on the
King's Cross scene. Maybe we're not supposed to, after all, as Dumbledore says to Harry, does it matter if it's real? But I don't want Christian iconography of going towards heaven and some half point where Harry is tied to the magical world and talks to heavenly Dumbledore-god about Voldemort-satan and Nagini-serpent pushing into the books and Harry being Jesus ressurected. It's not CS Lewis; Jo might have been influenced by that imagery but she has also been influenced by countless myths (especially with character names) and there's pages written on how the books reflect the mythical stages of alchemy - I consider this just another myth that has influenced the books, not a message in and of itself, so it can't explain the scene for me. Plus, though he intended to sacrifice himself for the good of the world, Harry was not resurrected by a deity or religion, but by Voldemort's foolishness, the fact that a) Voldemort had unintentionally made Harry a Horcrux and then had destroyed that part of his soul and b) Voldemort had unintentionally given Harry a lifeline by taking some of his blood and his mother's protection (which apparently in Voldemort didn't wear out when Harry turned 17...another kind of catch in the plot...I try not to think about that one too closely, as even DD wasn't confident on it, but it is a little convenient...)
I want to know by what magical mechanism was Dumbledore able to talk to the living, if he was indeed dead (he was) and had forsaken a chance to come back as a ghost (he had). So if DD had invaded Harry's head, but was really talking to him, how did he pull this Obi Wan moment off (and why did JKR make it sooooo reminiscent of Obi Wan)? We see several magical never-evers in book 7 that Jo had previously implied were impossible: flying without the aid of magical objects, like broomsticks, which we can explain as Voldemort being one of the most powerful wizards in history and discovering some (likely dark) means by which to fly, and also, coming back to life in a way, if that is indeed what DD was doing in those moments, reaching from the land of the dead to Harry, or Harry who was still able to inhabit the living world, without the stone (that was gone already) and without being a ghost, which Nick has told us is a terrible choice to be stuck forever in the land of the living; while others go on to the land of the dead unable to return.
Alternatively, we can interpret that Harry really was dead, or part way there but still tied to earth, but then, why was it only DD who he talked to? If he thought Voldemort had killed him, even though he thought DD had manipulated it all, would it really be DD whom he desired to see first upon death, and not his parents and Sirius?
I know that scene was necessary to explain it all, and to clear up Dumbledore, but it's under my skin. I haven't yet finished my reread, so maybe it will make more sense when I'm not overtired and frantic that Harry can't possibly be dead, but I'm curious how others interpreted that scene.
I think the thing on the ground is the bit of Voldemort's soul that Voldemort's killing curse has just killed; detached from Harry. It's described as similar to Voldemort before his return in book 4, and that Harry is concerned about this bit of soul but Dumbledore says he can do nothing for it (it is already dead, and/or it is so evil nothing can be done for it) is another sign of how good Harry is.
As for
Unforgivable Curses, I think we saw that several on the good side had to use them, and that is the sacrifice you must make in war. Even a liberal like myself can admit as much; if the other side has guns and they are truly evil, you better have guns and be willing to use them too or you have much less of a chance at success. We also saw Death Eaters killed by other means that weren't unforgivable curses, such as whatever Molly sent at Bellatrix, or stunning spells at people on broomsticks 1000s of feet in the air (but Harry has morals; he won't do this to Stan who he knows to be Imperiused).
The wand has confused most on Leaky threads I've read, and is also on my list of magical theory questions to ask JKR - it obviously can't work at a simple Expelliarmus spell, but there has to be some grander sense in which the next owner has defeated the previous owner, right? Except that DD pretty much allowed Draco to do what he did, and how could Harry master the Elder wand by disarming Draco who was using a different wand? Very confusing, and it shakes my faith in JKR's plotting abilities and ability to imagine this complete magical world to think it is a mistake, but it may jsut be that - she planned this sequence 17 years ago, when she wasn't the author she is today (see below), and she'd already published the scene in HBP when Draco disarms DD - so was she simply cornered into making the Wand that mysterious? If its magical properties are supposed to be finicky and unkown, if it is supposed to have some element of choice as to its owner (as we are told of wands) why would it choose Draco over Snape? Snape may have been despicable, but was clearly a powerful wizard and showed great fortitude in his spy work, which the wand may seek; whereas Draco was both only a decent underage wizard and fairly spineless and cowardly. One of the open questions that made an enjoyable book seem unsatisfying to me in some ways.
A few more items for discussion:
I have to applaud how brilliant
Hermione was in the story, saving their asses a thousand times over from the bag with everything they'd need to the protective charms to intuition when the Apparated away from Ron and she knew, in the heat of a very tense moment, that he could find them. She was awesome.
Ron. What does everyone make of his desertion? I was very bothered by it while I was reading the part without him, as we are supposed to be from Harry's point of view. (I also felt the desperation of their endless, ever-moving search, excellent writing there). When we hear his story and learn he immediately wanted to return, it made perfect sense. After all, he and Harry have rarely fought, and it was bound to happen, especially with tensions over girls and Ron's jealousy at being overshadowed that has been a theme since they first met. So it makes sense even that Dumbledore would know to give Ron the
Deluminator, but the whole thing adds another question to my
list of questions for JKR, this one in the category of "the way the magical world works" (the other categories are "writing decisions" such as the repreive and title changes she's alluded to, and "character backstory and futures"). How the hell does the Deluminator work? Is it a honing beacon to what you most desire, which for Ron would be Hermione and/or to return to help his friends? That'd be pretty damn cool, but I'd like to know for sure.
Dumbledore. I can't wait to go back and reread the series knowing what we know now, I think the complexity and boyhood mistakes make him much more real, and I think his strength at resisting things he knew would corrupt him (the Hallows, the position of Minister) is as admirable to me as Harry's pure goodness is to him. Big thumbs up for that, and the journey of emotions Harry had to feel towards him, which recalled his anger in book 5 that ended up to be caused by Dumbledore’s protectiveness AND his strategic needs – more foreshadowing, anyone?
Jo's writing has gotten much better, though I do have a few problems with the pacing of book 7 - but there has always been a great climax at the end, I guess. Anyway, I mostly wanted to acknowledge how funny she's become. I mean, Fred and George have always been funny, and there have been other humorous scenes and nicknames and incidents, but book 6 and book 7 are truely on another level, they rise above the rest and have me roaring with laughter. I laugh to myself walking down the street just reliving the funniest moments of these books, and the bits that weren't so much moments but ongoing humor. Ron's birthday gift to Harry and the antics with complements that follow - all the while made funnier because Ron is worried about Harry and Ginny and also Harry as competition for Hermione!! Silly, silly Ron, giving the competition your playbook. Actually the whole time at the Burrow is hilarious, from Hermione's mouthing off to Scrimgeour to Harry and Krum ("big jealous boyfriend" - "what's the point of being an international quiddich player if all the pretty girls are taken" hahhaha). The Potterwatch scene (I wish there'd been another one, at Bill's or something) which was prolonged hilarity equivalent to Luna's Quiddich match in book 6. Ron confunding the driving examiner, and his exchange with Hermione that shows how they still affectionately bicker, 19 years later. Great entertainment is funny while it is full of drama, action, suspense, fear, morality lessons, etc. (This is one of the reasons the first two seasons of Grey's Anatomy were better than the third...but I digress). Jo's humor is fabulous, I have to give a nod to it.
Remus and Tonks deserved a better death scene (though I kind of knew Remus would bite it, and probably both of them, when Harry became godfather). I took the brevity of treatment his death received to be another message about the nature of war. I was kind of pissed that while little Teddy got his follow up, George/Fred didn't. (Another death foreshadowed - George lost an ear and I KNEW it would be Fred who died.) I agree that Tonks and Lupin were the 2 extra deaths - she didn't originally intend them, but decided it would be a brilliantly tragic parallel to make Harry godfather to another boy orphaned by Voldemort.
The reprieve. My theories are either Hagrid (because it was clear he was going to die, and then maybe she got to writing that scene where the DEs bring Harry's body back and thought, "hey, I love Hagrid and it would be beautiful to have him carry Harry, plus he's just slow enough not to immediately notice when Harry disappears," or Molly Weasley, because under my original theory she would die to protect either Harry or one of her kids, so in the book, maybe she was supposed to die to protect Ginny, and the death of his surrogate mother would make Harry reveal himself, rather than Voldemort's wrath towards her for killing Bellatrix (who, by the way, seemed to have something sexual for Voldemort...sick, sick lady). Who do you guys think got the reprieve? (I wrote this yesterday guys...I know we have the answer now!)
A
continuity question on Hagrid that has really been bothering me, somebody, I am DESPERATE for a response on this:
In the 7 Harrys chapter, Hagrid dives off the motorbike onto an attacking death eater. Voldemort then comes up to Harry, whose wand strangely points at him and breaks Lucius's wand. We hear Voldemort asking for another wand; Harry pushes the dragon fire button and accelerates forward (we know there was enough acceleration to previously break the sidecar off); just as Voldemort catches him Harry enters the protective bubble around the Tonks house and crashes into their lake. Note that he accellerated forward into the bubble from the place where Hagrid fell and he last saw Voldemort. Then, Hagrid is suddenly on the ground (without the death eater?) within the bubble, appearing so wounded that upon waking up Harry fears he has died. How on earth did the great Hagrid movement happen??? I can't imagine such a big continuity error would be missed, so I have to assume something is wrong with my reading comprehension. Anyone have an explanation?? One that doesn't involve Harry's comically desperate "Accio Hagrid" summons propelling the giant away from Harry?
Sooo I wrote that last night sans internet access after reading the pages of this thread I'd downloaded and today we get some ANSWERS!!! I hope its the beginning of many answers:
http://www.usatoday.com/life/books/news/2007-07-25-harry-potter-spoilers_N.htm
Confirmation on poor Lupin and Tonks. And wow, Mr. Weasley...another Harry father figure...there wasn't even a hint of his death in the final version!
She also gave more info and epilogue type stuff on another interview, I'm waiting for leaky to post video!!
Also, Unico, great post on the humanity of Harry Potter!! The love thing - that's why the Malfoys really touched me in the end, their love for Draco overcame their evilness, too.
Teta, my office is literally on the corner where the explosion took place; no exagerating. I am working in a Dunkin Donuts (they are wireless in NYC, such a strange concept for a Bostonian like myself!).
I can see David Thewlis doing this, in the book it says "he fell across the threshold". And then we don't see him again until the end of the scene where he is seen swigging wine and he looks tipsy and they push him out the door and he is swaying, slurring "goodbye" etc. LOL.A GREAT bit of comic relief, it won't become tragic until the next time we'd see Lupin and Tonksin the film, when they are seen dead side by side in the Great Hall. This would be a good way to film this.
) and people will probably be debating this for a long time to come. 
