I'm MUCH more intrigued by the identity of the wizard or witch who beat Dumbledor and Harry to the locket in the chalice. Malfoy fils
seems to have been a dupe of Valdemort, Snape, AND Dumbledor.
I thought the cabinet trick for getting Death Eaters into Hogwarts was BRILLIANT! It was a great plot device.
There seemed to be a lot more "terrorist activity" in this book - i.e. indiscriminate killing of "innocent noncombatants" than in all the other books combined. Do you think this was in Rowling's original plot plan for the book series or do you think she, personally, is responding to the real world terrorist activity going on around the world?
I was disappointed there was no further mention of Muggle authorities beyond the strained opening involving the British P.M. It made the whole interchange between the Ministers of Magic and the P.M. seem farcical and gratuitous without advancing the plot.
Considering Harry had such a difficult time solving the train station and Diagon Alley problems in the first book, was anyone curious how standoffish Tom Riddle needed no help?
I think the ambiguity involving Snape's real allegiance (Voldemort, Dumbledore, Harry, Malfoy's mother, or himself) is a valid plot device and served to add tension to the ending of this book, leaving readers hungering for a satisfactory conclusion to the entire saga.
I was appalled at the number of typos and malaprops throughout this edition (Scholastic) of the book (page 58 - Harry's breath leaves a "fug" on the window.
proofreaders couldn't seem to keep "apparate" and "apparition" consistent (wouldn't the noun for apparate
? "apparition" means "A ghostly figure")
perhaps, SOMEWHERE, folks use the idiom "get shot of"
instead of "get shut of,"
certainly no Muggles I know use it.
I think I'll look up some of the fan web sites for Rowling and Potter to see how they are taking it. It seems to me the publicity falloff after the big book release was a lot more rapid than for previous books in the series.