Let's face it: J. K. Rowling's Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows isn't as great as some would have others believe. In fact, given the suspense of the previous novels, Year Seven is downright boring. Yes, I said it: boring.

Oddly enough, all the flaws in the series seemed to announce themselves on every page: mediocre writing, laughably bad dialogue--during the climax of the novel, Harry is shouting everything he says--and paper-thin characterization. The worst part was that I just found it hard to care about what was going on. Rowling seemed to be making a colossal effort to keep the book long: over half the book shows Harry, Ron, and Hermione Apparating aimlessly, searching for Lord Voldemort's Horcruxes, and, in between searches, bickering endlessly.

"Harry, what are we doing?"

"I have no idea! Blast you, Dumbledore, for not telling me what I'm doing!"

"Let's Apparate!"

"There's nothing here! Harry, it's all your fault for not making Dumbledore tell you what you're supposed to be doing!"

"No, it's all Ron's fault because he's so stupid!"

"What? It's Hermione's fault for making us Apparate here in the first place!"

"No, it's Dumbledore's fault, drat you! My scar is burning!"

"You're supposed to know what you're doing, Harry! Screw this! I'm leaving!"

And on and on, for five hundred pages or so. In short, Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows is the worst kind of finish: it's tedious, completely forced, and utterly pointless. But hey: six out of seven ain't bad.

Comments

[ted]

I half agree with you, in that this book did intensify some of the series' worst elements, especially the slog in the middle that has plagued every one of her big books (4-7). With so much to happen, there was no reason why we had to be subjected to chapters of nothingness and pointless bickering. And I do find that Rowling is not very good at writing big scenes--the showdown with Voldemort was at least half-stupid.

[Nonanon]

Well, I was a bit bored in the middle, although I still liked it. I just had to comment in support of your taking this one on with a good, honest, heartfelt review. I was a little tired of the "oh my god Rowling's the best writer ever no one is ever going to be able to make children read this way ever again!" ones.

[Brandon]

Ted: I agree, the climax with Harry and Voldemort circling each other was stupid. As I reading the book, however, I got the sense that Rowling was just tired of the series. And who can blame her? It was also as though she had no tricks left, like she'd used all her imagination on the previous books. One of the things that's always drawn me to the series is its charm; that was gone in this novel, and as a result, I found myself focusing on just how bad it really was. It wasn't even a "so bad it's good" kind of book; for me, it was a "so bad just let it end" kind of book. Never a good thing.

Nonanon: Given all the raves I've been skimming, I just had to say, "Come on. Be honest. This book is terrible." Of course, I wouldn't expect this book to appeal to anyone but fans of the series, but even so, maybe Rowling should've spent some more time on it. She just seems burned out, but I can't blame her; writing about one set of characters and one world for almost ten years, and churning out doorstops like she has, would burn anyone out. But every author is entitled to his or her bad books. It just so happens--unfortunately--that Rowling's really bad book turned out to be perhaps the most important, in terms of hype and expectation.

[Andi]

Whatever you do, don't go read about my gushing love for it. LOVE! I agree, it has its flaws, but there's enough good stuff there that makes me feel like a squidgy kid again to make it all a-OK. ;)

[jess]

I'm pleased to read a review that is a bit closer to my experience of reading the novel. I think I liked it more than you Brandon but you're right about the thin characters and clunky writing. I thought there were some nice little moments- I liked the multipying treasure in Gringott's- but it was a long time between good bits. I've enjoyed the series but just can't help but feel it's all a bit pedestrian.

[simon]

You realise that you will now be cursed and put under some sort of anti-potter appreciation spell!

[Brandon]

Andi: Of course, there's absolutely nothing wrong with loving the book. Love it away! Everyone had their own expectations for the book, and yes, it had its moments. You're right about how the series makes one feel like a kid again; that's why I loved the series in the first place. For me, Harry's experiences at Hogwarts were why I felt like a kid. He didn't go back to Hogwarts (at least not until the end), and that's why I couldn't enjoy the book the way I could enjoy the others. And Snape not being a major player in the story, at least in the way that he has been in all the other books, is like giving Darth Vader a thirty-second cameo in "Star Wars." It just doesn't work!

Jess: I thought the multiplying treasure in Gringotts was great--very creative and ironic--but I agree, there were too few good moments in the book. And you're right about it being pedestrian (I love that term in this case!); like I said before, it's like Rowling just wanted to get it over with. "Here's the last book, written to order--now leave me alone!"

[Andi]

LOL, I love your Darth Vader analogy. I can definitely get on board with that. :D

[Heather (errantdreams)]

I often wonder if, as a writer becomes super-famous, their editor becomes loath to be as strict in their editing as in times past. After all, you don't want to scare away the goose that lays your golden egg, just when they've hit the point where any other publisher in their right mind would give them any deal they wanted to hop ship. And it often seems that the books of superstar writers become longer and longer and more and more bloated as time goes on.