Having finished the book last night, I thought
that it was good, but it had some major issues that kept me from loving it.
First, the book was just oozing deus ex machina. Now, for a children's book, that'd be fine and dandy, but Deathly Hallows was not a children's book. It was trying incredibly hard to be adult. It was forcing you to take it seriously. And then it would slap you across the face with a completely unbelievable turn of events.
Voldemort went out like a chump, which just isn't fitting. This man managed to essentially take over the country, so, if he's a chump, then what does that say about everyone else? It was just really disappointing. I didn't even care about the epilogue after the battle ended how it did.
Also, for a so-called "unbeatable" wand.. I'd say it failed. Every one who ever owned the damned thing was defeated. How is that unbeatable? I'd have been trying to give the damn thing to Harry, just to ensure his death.
First, the book was just oozing deus ex machina. Now, for a children's book, that'd be fine and dandy, but Deathly Hallows was not a children's book. It was trying incredibly hard to be adult. It was forcing you to take it seriously. And then it would slap you across the face with a completely unbelievable turn of events.
Voldemort went out like a chump, which just isn't fitting. This man managed to essentially take over the country, so, if he's a chump, then what does that say about everyone else? It was just really disappointing. I didn't even care about the epilogue after the battle ended how it did.
Also, for a so-called "unbeatable" wand.. I'd say it failed. Every one who ever owned the damned thing was defeated. How is that unbeatable? I'd have been trying to give the damn thing to Harry, just to ensure his death.
QUOTE(S.A.W. @ Jul 29 2007, 02:01 PM) 429850
Also, for a so-called "unbeatable" wand.. I'd say it failed. Every one who ever owned the damned thing was defeated. How is that unbeatable? I'd have been trying to give the damn thing to Harry, just to ensure his death.
Well, the point was that it was undefeatable in a pitched battle, but could be taken by treachery / foul play (this is actually a common fantasy theme with castles. "The castle that has never fallen... to siege. The castle that has never fallen... except by treachery from within.")
The only part that made me go "Huh?" on the wand-aspect was... how did Dumbledore beat G-whatever in the duel? You'd expect that the G-guy would have been using his wand. That seems somewhat fishy to me, unless he set it aside to go after Dumbledore without the advantage-- but they mentioned that he feared Dumbledore, so I wouldn't think he'd give up his only edge.
The only part that made me go "Huh?" on the wand-aspect was... how did Dumbledore beat G-whatever in the duel? You'd expect that the G-guy would have been using his wand. That seems somewhat fishy to me, unless he set it aside to go after Dumbledore without the advantage-- but they mentioned that he feared Dumbledore, so I wouldn't think he'd give up his only edge.
QUOTE(Xenthos @ Jul 29 2007, 11:22 AM) 429852
Well, the point was that it was undefeatable in a pitched battle, but could be taken by treachery / foul play (this is actually a common fantasy theme with castles. "The castle that has never fallen... to siege. The castle that has never fallen... except by treachery from within.")
The only part that made me go "Huh?" on the wand-aspect was... how did Dumbledore beat G-whatever in the duel? You'd expect that the G-guy would have been using his wand. That seems somewhat fishy to me, unless he set it aside to go after Dumbledore without the advantage-- but they mentioned that he feared Dumbledore, so I wouldn't think he'd give up his only edge.
The only part that made me go "Huh?" on the wand-aspect was... how did Dumbledore beat G-whatever in the duel? You'd expect that the G-guy would have been using his wand. That seems somewhat fishy to me, unless he set it aside to go after Dumbledore without the advantage-- but they mentioned that he feared Dumbledore, so I wouldn't think he'd give up his only edge.
That was part of what made me think that it wasn't always taken by treachery. Dumbledore beat Grindelwald in a duel, so it would seem like it was possible. However, there's other shakey points brought up by all that. How did Gregorovitch get the wand? Did he steal it? Grindelwald definitely stole it, and didn't defeat Gregorovitch in a real way. So, if theft counts as defeat, then why didn't Voldemort taking the wand from the tomb count as theft from Harry, and thus defeating Harry, and thus giving Voldemort mastery over the wand?
The wand thing as a whole was kinda "bwah?" because the rules were never clear.
Also, regarding wands.. did anyone else thing it was odd that, apparently, wielding three wands together allows one to cast a triple spell? Why in the hell would a Wizard ever use only one wand? I'd be duct taping a dozen of them together, man. Who needs the Elder Wand when you can pull out a gatling gun o' wands?
The wand thing as a whole was kinda "bwah?" because the rules were never clear.
Also, regarding wands.. did anyone else thing it was odd that, apparently, wielding three wands together allows one to cast a triple spell? Why in the hell would a Wizard ever use only one wand? I'd be duct taping a dozen of them together, man. Who needs the Elder Wand when you can pull out a gatling gun o' wands?
