I could have done without the side-by-side bodies, as the rest of this text was already full of how important love is, but it didn’t hurt me, either.

I complain about Mad Eye’s off-panel death because for four books the audience was told how great an Auror he is. But we never get to actually see it. The fourth book, which contains the most Mad Eye, doesn’t actually contain all that much Mad Eye as it’s actually Barty Crouch Jr. pretending to be Mad Eye. The fifth, sixth, and seventh books contain only a smidgeon of Mad Eye, and he never actually fights, I don’t think. He’s a master tactician, to be sure, but does he ever actually wield a wand? Does he ever catch practicioners of the Dark Arts? We were only ever told Mad Eye was badass; we never got to actually see it.

And something else I forgot to complain about: since when have the Unforgivable Curses been Not-So-Unforgivable? Harry et al. use some of them when breaking into Gringotts (which should have been a much more awesome heist sequence; oh well) and both Harry and McGonagall use some on one of those Carrow siblings. Have they been renamed Only-Slightly-Awful Curses?

Same with Mad-Eye- I felt that things going off-panel as it were were fashioned out of a chaotic struggle (and even moreso with the Hogwart’s all-out battlefield) where our real POV’s, Harry, Ron, Hermione, just don’t know what’s going on and are scrambling for survival, only to sit and wait out the death watch to find out who is safe and who isn’t- to me Rowling utilized an effective tool in the dread of loss, rather than showing us the loss in real-time, amid a conflict that has become so widespread that casualties. And hey, we see plenty of that in the two or three prior books if you remember- Cedric, Sirius, Dumbledore- so she used a different tactic, and one that worked for me personally. But dog my cats! You never know.

Tangentially related, let me say that I am also somewhat ill at ease speaking about an author at all: I am from the school of thought which says the author is dead and is therefore unimportant in the critiquing of the text he produced (Roland Barthes originated the theory). Rowling and her ghost should have no bearing on my analysis of the work in question (especially since I know very little about her), but in this day and age, it seems almost impossible not to equate “text” with “author’s work.” So, anytime I say “Rowling” up there, pretend I said “Flibberdigibbit” instead. It should make for a more interesting read.

1- JK Rowling originally was going to send Mr. Weasley down for the count, but in the end, couldn’t bring herself to do it, as he’s the only true, decent father figure of the series entire.

I liked her rationale, when considering the many and varied flaws of Albus Dumbledore, schemer extraordinaire (kinda up there with Alan’s Moore/Davis’ Maerlyn though on a smaller scale to be sure) though said flaws might have begun to be uncovered starting with book 5 or 6 rather than a voluminous “so here’s what happened” chapter which blunts the book’s climax with a helluva lot of exposition.

2. Speaking of formulas for an Epic- I notice nobody pointed out that The Lupins’ deaths leave another orphan, and another stepfather, or that the Ginny/Harry relationship is basically Harry’s parents all over again (if for nothing else other than hair color)- so in a way the “Nineteen Years Later” is a way of showing the lives of the next generation uninterrupted by horrors- Harry’s children and his Godson, a mirror of Harry’s infancy are able to grow up without the continued shadow of death and danger hanging over them- a chance to do things over again with no Voldemort lurking in the periphery- an earned happy ending.

As for Harry’s ressurection, Brendan nailed it on the head that Harry is the personification of the Deathly Hallow’s tale- he accepts death, but goes one further than the brother who hides from it, deceives it and therefore survives unlike his selfish, less forward thinking brothers- Harry unselfishly confronts death and is able to come away walking tall. As for the “miracle” of his survival, that’s the one constant throughout the books- Voldemort’s inability to kill him and his shortsightedness in understanding why.

And as for Snape not being an agent of Love, well, Lily was the turning point for him, the crux of his choices and her death to him was unacceptable- that it’s not a selfless love, well, that just rounded the character out for me better than some kindly Uncle who would love Harry unreservedly- he doesn’t have to like Harry to love Lily and honor her memory. I do believe he should have been able to put up just a bit more fight though, given his formidability in books prior, but what the hell- its not his story in the end- the books have never been “Severus Snape and the…”.