Goodbye Harry Potter

This was better written than the first book. By far. The first book's biggest problem is that it feels like a bunch of episodic adventures with no clear goal. The mystery sucks because the kids are on the wrong trail of it the entire time, and they don't solve it so much as running into Quirrell after he's nearly already won.

There are problems with the climax in this book in this specific regard. I find it remarkably stupid that Harry took SO fucking long to cotton on that Riddle was not on his side and the Heir of the Slytherin. Also dumb is the fact that Harry takes SO long to figure out the people in the diary's memory cannot hear him or interact with him. Is Rowling foolish enough to believe the kids reading the books are surprised at the same time Harry is? I gotta say, even in 1997, that seems pretty fucking unlikely to me. More likely Rowling is a shitty writer. Yeah, that feels right.

But there are good things to the book, as well as an entirely new crop of problems for the franchise to fail. I'll talk about the good things first.

Despite the fact that Harry himself is a numbnuts, the mystery in this book is MUCH tighter than the last. Everything falls into place so easily, it's almost both shocking and obnoxious how long it takes Harry to get there without Hermione.

My favorite revelation during the grand "How dunnit" was the idea that Ginny strangled Hagrid's roosters. It's a perfect kid-lit version of horrible. It's gruesome, and horrible on every level, and yet it's not unforgivable after the fact. It is a very good button to push there.

That being said, I do not approve of mind control in fiction for any reason. To be clear, this only occurs in the background, and we mostly learn about it after the fact, but I think it is USUALLY a damaging way to tell a story. This book sort of snuck it in around the edges, so I don't seem to have my usual objections. Especially because Ginny ultimately wasn't blamed at the end.

Let me say that the Parselmouth thing is the best hook of the book. When Justin's like "What are you playing at?", and Harry is creeped out by Snape's "shrewd, calculating look", it makes no sense as it's happening (or at least it didn't when I first read it) but makes perfect sense in context. Also, Snape is awesome. So there.

Hagrid was as big a hindrance as ever, but Dumbledore was not. Of course Dumbledore was not perfect. He sensed Harry knew something, he should have pushed him since HE knew most of it already, and they could have compared notes. In Rowling's defense, although this is actually poor writing on her end, it's brief enough, and not important enough, that it doesn't feel that way at the time. Only in hindsight do I know Rowling makes Dumbledore as passive as he is on purpose, because she can't make Harry the hero unless he is.

One of the things I love about the books (and still do) is how the climaxes and endings differ from each other. Frankly the ending to this one is a little too similar to Sorcerer's Stone. Harry has to face the ghost of Voldemort on his own. Again. But it's the fact that the books don't always end with Harry fighting Voldemort alone which means things aren't in danger of falling into a rut. And God know they could have.

Those are the good things.

Bad things now. There are a ton. Although I have fewer political complaints than the first book. Granted, if anything the characters are even meaner here. Maybe it's just that I don't have any NEW complaints.

We're getting back to choices. Dumbledore insists Harry is a Gryffindor because of his choices. Choices, Choices, Choices.

But he was never given a fair choice. Everyone before he went to Hogwarts was telling him how shitty Slytherin was, and despite the fact that he potentially could have gone into that House and reformed it from the Ground Up, taking the wind ENTIRELY out of Voldemort's sails, he takes the easy way out to stay with his new friends. Slytherin would have been a hard journey for him. But maybe the hero's journey SHOULD be hard. Maybe acting like Harry's choice is admirable when it's no choice at all (or at least it's just the easiest choice possible) is bad messaging.

Look at the fight between Arthur Weasley and Lucius Malfoy. There is BAD fucking blood there, and despite Lucius (sensibly, mind you) earlier telling Draco to be nicer to Harry while things in the Wizarding World are what they are, that specific ugliness digs in everyone's heels even deeper. How is this a story about choice when Harry in thrust into a battle mostly based upon petty schoolyards grudges from decades ago? How did Harry choose that? And considering the situation is EXACTLY what I said (and even WORSE when adding the Marauders and Snape into the equation in the next book) how is the saga about choice? It even has a fucking prophecy for God's sake! It is to laugh. Rowling think framing her fiction as about choices is an adult moral that the saga should aspire to. It is. And Rowling fails it on every level, at every step of way. An embarrassing, shocking amount. So badly and egregiously, I don't think even ROWLING understands the point of anything she's written. She thinks she's sending a specific wise message while everything in the book reads the opposite way. Maybe the reason Rowling has the toxic opinions she does is because she's stupid. I won't deny she can spin a yarn. But an intelligent yarn? I don't think so. I think she's just dumb, which is why she is so harmful.

I can't believe HOW Rowling portrays the Weasleys to start off with. The fight with Arthur and Lucius was bad enough, but the first scene we EVER see of Molly Weasley properly interacting with Harry Potter is her screaming at the top of her lungs at her kids like a crazy person and then saying "Hey, Harry, how are you?" in a normal tone of voice. Do you know who does shit like that? Sociopaths. Rowling trying to normalize that as some sort of lovable rowdy family dynamic suggests psychological problems on Rowling's end. It's not funny. It's horrible.

Mrs. Weasley's Howler was stupid too. Did she really think her family would be better off if the entire grand hall at Hogwarts found out Ron's father was facing an inquiry and disciplinary action at work? Because that's what happened. And that appeared to be her design. Why? Why? What the FUCK!?

Speaking of which, the shit with the gnomes is bad enough. They're people and they are being violently abused by the Weasleys, for the sin of living in their garden. But the Mandrakes are sentient beings with family lives resembling real people, essentially being raised to slaughter for the depetrification cure. It's meant as a joke and I'm like "Rowling is a sick fuck if she thinks this is either funny, or forgivable." Using actual people for ingredients for medical use is fucking Nazi shit. How can Rowling act like it isn't? It's sick.

After Rowling showed her true colors people sheepishly claimed that her actual writing output was mean-spirited and bullying too. That is totally true. The fate of the Mandrakes states that for a fact.

The problem with the moral that Malfoy is wrong-headed in his Pure-Blood racism, is at the VERY fucking beginning of the book Hagrid himself claims the Malfoy family is rotten due to "bad blood". Does Rowling understand that Hagrid claiming that flies against Ron and Hagrid's later outrage at Malfoy calling Hermione a Mudblood? Having Hagrid do that suggests bloodlines ARE important after all, and the shitty bloodlines happen to conveniently rest instead with the people Harry already hates. Very convenient for all involved. Choices? Bullshit on every level.

Crabbe and Goyle, man. Slytherin is for people with great ambition? It is to LAUGH. Those chuckleheads are nothing but Legacies coasting on Gentlemen's C's (although that's probably a higher gradepoint average than they actually have). But I don't like the idea that ambition supposedly drives Slytherins, and that ambition is supposedly bad, while Crabbe and Goyle so heavily represent that House. It's almost as if Rowling is too dumb to understand her story is showing the OPPOSITE things of the messages she claims she wants to get across.

Ron claims after the ordeal with Aragog he would never forgive Hagrid. Harry and his friends would have been better off if they had stuck to that plan.

I am alarmed by Cornelius Fudge's appearance here. And it's something you sort of have to put together as a whole to understand EXACTLY how problematic the character is, even beyond what Rowling thinks.

The next time we see Fudge and Lucius Malfoy together, they are buddy / buddy, and Fudge is clueless because he doesn't seem to hear or pay attention to the horrible, racist, cruel things he says under his breath to Harry and his friends. Rowling did that because she's a shitty writer, but reading this again for the final time tells me this specific story avenue was never really open to her. Fudge HEARS Malfoy saying horrible and dreadful shit to both Dumbledore and Hagrid HERE. To his credit, he most certainly does NOT take Malfoy's side, and even defends Dumbledore a little. But him having heard Malfoy say these specific things HERE means Rowling has no business pretending Fudge is simply too clueless to not know what Malfoy actually is. And maybe if the moral were Fudge DID clearly know that and simply didn't care, that would be one thing. But neither Harry nor any of the other characters ever ONCE reach the conclusion that Fudge is a cynical asshole who averts his eyes at explicit and obvious racism to keep the coffers flowing. And the reason I think Rowling is an ineffective writer, is because that explanation would have been damn good enough for me. But nobody ever correctly surmises it, which leads me to believe Rowling DOESN'T even think it, or even know it's correct, which also tells me Rowling is a poor writer not able to put two and two together, even if it should be pretty fucking obvious.

This book is Rowling's first brush with antifeminism and it shan't be the last. The only people clever enough to see through Gilderoy Lockhart's obvious b.s. are the men. Even supposedly sensible females like Hermione are smitten with him and make excuses for his rank incompetence and narcissism. Single mom writer, Rowling had it tough. She doesn't seem all that invested in building up The Other Sistas though after SHE'S made it. Just saying the ladder has been pulled up after her. And this is NOT the only time this occurs.

Lockhart troubles me not just for the weaknesses he embellishes in female characters that should not have them, but Rowling's story of how she created him disturbs me. Lockhart is supposedly the only person in the story based on a real person she once knew. Considering what an utter shit Lockhart is, hearing somebody took somebody from their life and turned them into a punchline in their fiction as a joke at their expense is bad enough. Rowling's defense is that the guy she based this upon is too clueless to ever realize she's slamming him. She claims he'll go around telling people he was the basis for Albus Dumbledore, and he'll never know. As far as excuses go, that's not really all that acceptable, and makes me think Rowling is still mean and low-class. But in hindsight it's even more troubling.

If Rowling simply had anti-trans opinions, I'd be pissed, but that's normal. Normal-seeming people have horrible opinions in 2024 IS life in 2024. But it goes far BEYOND that. Rowling claimed in a recent interview that the Pure-Blood movement and the Death Eaters were stands-ins for people as supposedly harmful as transpeople. Her personalizing the saga in THAT specific way suddenly puts an added question mark to Gilderoy Lockhart, doesn't it? Are we SURE the guy Rowling is slamming is as bad as she claims he is? Saying the entire story was designed to be anti-trans in hindsight (just for shock value, even I know that claim is actual bullshit) means Rowling is probably a shitty judge of character, and always has been. Suddenly the probability that her cruelty there was felt instead of ignored, just skyrocketed. Lockhart is portrayed as a sociopath. Upon Rowling claiming Death Eaters and transpeople are one and the same, I wondering how she CANNOT be. So her origin story of the guy too dumb to understand she's publicly humiliating him doesn't hold up to any sort of scrutiny. I automatically feel bad for the guy.

The second book is more solid than the first. The mystery feels woven together better, and not random happenstances sloppily tied together. And yet, I feel the character moments are meaner, and less fun than they should be, simply because Rowling is a mean person. And you know what? That's no fun. And do you know what else? That aspect of the books has ALWAYS bothered me, even before everyone turned on Rowling after she started her shit. The books are mean and unpleasant, and show the only way to fight that is to be meaner and MORE unpleasant than the guys bothering the heroes. I don't like that and I never did. 2 stars.

After this book came out fans insisted Rowling ought to go into writing mysteries. She definitely has a knack for the construction of them. One of the major selling points of THIS specific mystery is that all of the elements are outlandish and bonkers, so it's impossible for the reader to solve. But just because it's impossible for the reader to solve, doesn't mean it isn't fair. All of the elements needed to solve it have been sprinkled all throughout not just this book, but the previous two. Which makes it an impressive trick of writing, and a good and satisfying mystery solve. This is Rowling starting to get more comfortable writing a cohesive narrative.

And the climax is fucking dark. Hermione sobbing because she believes Harry is about to kill her cat is so raw and real for the awful reason that he IS. As outlandish as the Pettigrew scenario is, it's personal and horrible.

Speaking of it being personal, dragging Snape into the climax was brilliant. He played his role as antagonist perfectly. There is also a major clue he is good at the end that Harry either misses or is too petty to appreciate. Although Snape is telling Cornelius Fudge that Potter and his friends' rulebreaking almost led to tragedy, and there needs to be punishment, Snape is also very careful to say that Black supposedly confunded the Trio. If Snape was truly not invested in protecting Harry, and against both him and Dumbledore's agenda, he could have insisted Harry and his friends were deliberately complicit. And considering both Black and Pettigrew got away, and their only witness is a Werewolf, that could have been enough to convince Fudge. But Snape only wants Harry punished, not destroyed, and know accusations of complicity could get him expelled and endanger both his life and the debt he felt he owed Lily. I always found Snape's insistence on the Confunding Charm being used here a clear indication he has always been on the side of angels, and one of the reasons I dislike Harry sometimes is that obvious shit like that brushes by him completely. The fact that he took no notice of it, and it in fact is never mentioned again or treated as important show Harry's blindspots. Or possibly Rowling's herself.

There are a lot of blind spots for Rowling in this book. Rowling has matured enough as writer to put together an actual plot. What she has still not managed to do it populate it with believable characters.

I've mentioned before that there is too much meanness and bullying in the books. And there is. But I might not be as put off by that as I am if it were remotely realistic. Malfoy being such a wimp about his injury is something real children would fucking make fun of. Openly. To his face. Likewise the fact that Malfoy is also bringing up his father is something real world kids would latch onto and give him hell for. Making kissy noises and calling him a baby and a Daddy's boy. Goddammit, Dan Quayle got shit for that and he was never the sniveling namedropper Malfoy is. You think a teenage boy would get away with that?

The closest Malfoy has been to being called on that was Hermione mentioning that Malfoy bought his way onto the Quidditch team via his father with new brooms in the last book. But he calls her a Mudlblood for it, and instead of Harry and pals realizing they struck a nerve (and insult gold) they never bring it up again.

I get the appeal of Severus Snape. I do. There is a glamour to the character and his darkness is very much of the Bad Boy variety. But Malfoy is a whiny baby. I understand in real life a certain public figure is too, and STILL has a lot of fans. But he's still repeatedly called on that by the opposition. The fact that is never occurs to Harry and friends to point out Malfoy's reliance on his family name comes from a sense of weakness instead of strength drives me crazy, because every little real-world asshole kid knows enough to do that when a kid starting throwing around "Wait till I tell my Mommy and Daddy!" How the fuck has Rowling made it a non-issue instead?

Another good complaint is this book further works against the moral of choices. Yeah, Harry saving Pettigrew's life is a choice (and a good one) but Rowling was unable to think of a good use for it in the seventh book, despite the promise of that here, so no credit. Genuine Prophecy by Trelawney also works against that, although ironically Hermione standing against her nonsense before it's revealed she IS a true Seer of sorts actually helps the notion. Weird Rowling immediately blows it up by the end of the book. And as interesting as the schoolboy drama being Black, Lupin, and Snape is (and it's SUPER interesting) the fact that essentially the entire return of Voldemort is down to how old schoolyard grudges play out is ALSO the antithesis of choice, particularly if Harry is goaded into taking the side he is by adults fighting a battle with a dude over shit that happened over 20 years ago. Generational feuds and inherited grudges are the antithesis of choice.

One last complaint. The recap of the previous books in the opening chapter is awkward as hell. To be fair, Rowling stopped doing the recaps in the fifth book, but in this book and the previous one especially they feel cringe. Mostly because it's unreasonable that Rowling is acting like people might be picking this book up fresh and not have read the previous ones. But you know what? If that is true, they aren't the readers that should ever be catered to. To those of us who read the first two books, reading this awkward, poorly written exposition hurts the book.

Before I close the review with a positive grade, I do have to reiterate my disapproval of Rowling's use of Looksism and fat-shaming. She is NOT a very kind person or writer, and yeah, it's as bad as ever, and in a lot of ways, even worse. It's a major problem.

But even if this is the final time I read this book, I still think it was a pretty good read. 4 stars.

Most of the previous reviews have been done in a anger. But I have to confess rereading THIS kind of hurts and makes me very sad. This was always my second favorite Harry Potter book after Deathly Hallows. And that's not even a question. And I had hoped very much that all of the red flags I had been noticing in the previous books would either be not as big a deal as I feared here, or not as numerous.

My pleasant memories of the book were a genuinely nice thing. And the reality of the kind of bully J.K. Rowling turned out to be is why I am no longer allowed that nice thing. Certainly there are parts of the book I still love and that still resonated. But there is SO much problematic shit that I overlooked for misguided reasons. And I think I'll talk about that a little more in the next review. But let's just say Rowling used to have a lot of credibility with me specifically regarding the bullied, the disenfranchised, and the misfits. That fact is ironic considering the fact that the books seem to VENERATE bullying on some level, but it was actually true for me. Her showing her true colors about that later on felt like a genuine betrayal.

Plenty of writers try to cater to misfits and I find their real-world credibility about the subject lacking. Greg Weisman springs immediately to mind. But whatever his failings in his writing, or his approach to fandoms, my disagreements with him there are just that: disagreements. People will disagree with ME and that's fine. I have different perspective. For Rowling, it's different. The shit she's pulled is indefensible. And this review is gonna be long and horrible because I have to say in every way why it's indefensible.

I would like to believe by the end of the review I will be unbiased enough to give the entire book a respectable 3 and a half stars for quality, down from my previous five star review. But we'll see. There is a LOT of unpleasantness to get through for this one.

Where do I start?

I guess I'll discuss the fact that many of this book's problems build upon my earlier complaints for the first three books. But before I get there I'm gonna talk about the book's NEW failures, that seemed to come out of nowhere, hurt the book, and the whole saga. S.P.E.W. is the pretty obvious failing, and when taken with everything else, is quite appalling. It IS however pretty low-hanging fruit. But really the first and biggest complaint I'm giving the book is Rita Skeeter.

In a kid-lit allegory tackling fascism, there is undoubtedly a place for a harsh critique against yellow journalism and fake news propaganda. But Rowling is not a talented enough writer (or a smart enough person) to explore cause and effect like that, or even understand its importance. No, Rita Skeeter, is a "celebrity gossip" instead, and her misbehavior involves making up bullshit love triangles and putting a negative spin on Harry's friends. I think what makes me a little angry about this missed important story opportunity is that Rowling seems to have created Skeeter as a response to how the Tabloids treated HER. Reporting laziness and media malfeasance is an extremely important topic and serious real-world issue. And Rowling only thinks of it in the sense of how it's personally effected her. I have to confess I haven't reread the book since Trump came along. Until now. And her critiques about the media feel both toothless and weirdly self-centered. Rowling seems to be raging against Skeeter's narcissism unaware that the character has simply unearthed her own.

And goddammit, "Rita Skeeter"? How the fuck is this person a professional writer? (Rowling, not Skeeter.) How the FUCK are we supposed to take a story seriously where the characters are named like Warner Bros cartoon characters? It pisses me off. Malfoy's mother's name being Narcissa is similarly fucked up. How it is we tolerated this shit for so long?

Oh, and in case you wonder if Rowling's disdain for transgender people came out of nowhere, her descriptions of Skeeter's "large, mannish hands" show this has always been something she's believed.

The worst thing about Skeeter to me is one of the tendencies Rowling does for all of her villains. There are never any proper consequences for the damaging shit they do. Rowling suggests Dumbledore does not see the people at the Slytherin table refusing to raise their glasses to Harry. You telling me Dumbledore is unaware of this shit? Fudge doesn't notice the openly cruel remark Lucius Malfoy makes to Arthur Weasley. Because actually having to acknowledge terrible behavior would mean Rowling would have to stop coasting in telling this story. Dumbledore says the truth is preferable to lie, and yet not a single moment of the villains always getting off Scot-free as if they are rascals instead of genocidal monsters is truthful. Gosh, Rita is unallowed to write for a year. Does that seem like a fair punishment, especially because with the information Hermione has on her could land her in Azkaban and take her off the board entirely? It's poor writing.

And so we come to S.P.E.W.. Speaking of stupid names, Rowling doesn't want us to take Hermione's concerns against slavery seriously if she says Hermione is stupid enough to give her organization that specific acronym. Again, cartoon shit, that doesn't just make me think less of Rowling. It makes me think less of Hermione.

But if I am being completely honest, despite the fact that the morality of Hermione wanting freedom for the elves being counter to everyone's perspective, that could have actually been a fascinating controversy to explore. That Rowling bungled in the later books. The last book in particular seems to reach the conclusion that "slavery is okay so long as you treat the slaves respectfully". And if THAT'S where we're winding up, the question never should have been raised.

Rowling is terrible at sticking the landing from the promises of this book. Rowling does not usually suck at set-up but the end of this book promises great things that never materialize. Like the uneasy alliance between Snape and Sirius, which would have been dramatic gold if Rowling had truly explored it. Or how about Dumbledore sending Hagrid to meet the giants? Also came to fucking nothing in the next book.

I can safely say this is the book where the poor prose becomes an actual problem. Stephen King (another author I have problems with) has an almost irrational hatred of adverbs. While I disagree that they are ALWAYS extraneous and never helpful, they CAN be abused. Especially by poor writers. And Rowling is off her nut with them here. The actual prose suffers it is so constant and noticeable. King is a big Harry Potter fan which is another one of the biggest reasons I don't actually understand Stephen King. You can't take the iron-clad stance against adverbs you do in "On Writing" and still be a fan of J.K. Rowling. You just can't, I said darkly.

Let's talk about the mixed messages again. Aside from the House-Elf shit. The notion that Crabbe and Goyle's fathers are Death-Eaters again puts to lie that the story is about Choice. That's legacy, not Choice. Also, as long as we're talking shit about legacies, that also works against the idea that Slytherins value ambition. Inheriting wealth and power without ever having to work for it is the antithesis of ambition.

Sirius Black is a very interesting character in both this book and the next. In each book Sirius says the wisest thing. And both things he says, as wise as they sound, ultimately turn out to be completely untrue. We'll get to his second wise bullshit observation in The Order Of The Phoenix, but here Sirius claims that the true measure of a man can be better measured in how he treats his inferiors, rather than his equals. Sounds wise and true, right? But aside from ugliness implied that any sort of House-Elf is automatically inferior to a human, Sirius himself treats the House-Elf Kreacher like utter shit in the next book. Sirius said an impressively insightful thing here. That is either completely untrue, or something he can't live up to himself.

Another mixed message is Barty Crouch Jr. claiming he was Voldemort's most faithful servant. But we SAW him in the Pensieve denying to his dying breath that he had anything to do with Voldemort. Inconsistencies like that are constant in the books (see also Hagrid decrying "foreigners" here), which might not be a problem if somebody ever called him on it. If as he was telling his story about being Voldemort's most faithful servant, I'd think more of Rowling if she has Dumbledore interject that the most famous part of his previous Death-Eater career was bawling to his Daddy that he most certainly wasn't one. Is that type of sharp criticism out of character for Dumbledore? Perhaps. But because nobody says it, it's a plot inconsistency.

Other people before me have mentioned how insulting to the Asian community Cho Chang is (taking particular note that her name sounds cringily like Ching Chong) but yeah, she is not making a good impression here.

Here's an interesting thought: Dumbledore believes the truth is better than lies. The truth about Frank and Alice Longbottom however was NOT his truth to tell. He had NO business telling Harry what happened to them if Neville already hadn't. Dumbledore is a VERY irresponsible adult. That right there is a red flag.

I mean, he sets the proper (and correct) boundary limit with Snape. It's obnoxious he doesn't give Neville that same consideration.

Mrs. Weasley is a sucky person because she actually believes that shit about Hermione. I wish Harry had a mother figure who wasn't so fucking horrible on every level.

Speaking of her sucking, I think a LOT of the shit she does in the book is passive aggressive and deliberate. Okay, she says she could only afford second-hand robes? You telling me this character who we've seen mending clothes magically would be unable to do a simple spell to remove the frills on the dress robes? It seems likelier than me it's more of a Power-Move from a Mom who is a sociopath and doesn't want their little boy to stray to far from the tit. It's doesn't read any other way to me.

I mentioned in an earlier book review that there is antifeminism present in the books, and yup, how shittily Ron acts towards Hermione in the lead-up to (and during) the Yule Ball is just appalling. To Hermione's credit she calls him on it. The thing is, not all of Ron's appalling behavior is directed at Hermione. He claims Hermione said she was going with somebody else because she didn't want to go with Neville. Excuse me? Isn't Neville supposed to be your friend? And goddammit, Neville seems to be a better friend to Hermione than Ron does. Neville reasons he and Hermione get along, and thoughtfully asks her, most likely as a friend. And Ron's first thought is Hermione lied to him because she thinks he sucks. You know what? I think Ron Weasley sucks. And that's not even a question. He does.

Still a lot of looksism and fat-shaming going on.

I've done a HELL of a lot of talking about what doesn't work in the book. I'm going to talk about things I liked next. Hopefully, I'll get excited because some of these things I liked a lot.

I think "The Riddle House" is the best opening chapter out of all seven Harry Potter books. It blew the franchise wide open, and it was SUPER unexpected to get an entire chapter completely outside of Harry Potter's perspective for the first (but not the last) time, especially when we did.

I talk shit about Rowling's prose. But her visual description of Barty Crouch Sr. when Harry sees him for the first time is sublime. If Rowling's entire book was filled with that kind of writing, I would have no problems with the prose. It's a perfect description. Harry sees immediately why Percy idolized him. Because he followed the Muggle clothes rule to the letter. The notion that his mustache is so even it looks like it was trimmed by a slide-rule is an amazing observation, as is Harry saying he could be confused for a banker, and even Uncle Vernon would probably be unable to see him for what he really was. Damn, I wish the book was ALL that paragraph.

The bit about Harry realizing Bill was COOL, because there was no other word for it was pretty good too.

Voldemort's resurrection is horrifying, and I would argue this is the second strongest climax after the final book. It's a kids book, and Rowling gets away with what she does because she doesn't go overboard with the gore and explicitness. I feel there is the correct balance between shock and subtlety that makes it forgivable and something a kid could handle.

I thought the way Harry dealt with Vernon at the beginning was great. He's not the doormat he was in the earlier books, or the asshole he was in the later books. This is the one book he threads the needle perfectly. He is very polite and measured in everything he says to his uncle. And controls the entire conversation with subtle manipulations and dogwhistles designed to make his uncle uncomfortable and concede the point rather than discuss it further. I wish all of the Dursley stuff was like that.

I'll tell you what I like. I like that Rowling telegraphs that Snape is good once and for all, in a way that can't be argued against. He is seen in Crouch Sr.'s Foe-Glass. Rowling is SO enamored of this iron-clad clue that Snape is a good guy, she mentions it a whopping three times! And it never registers once with Harry because he is a total sap.

If this IS the last time I read this book (and I think it is) I am sad because the good experience I used to have with it simply isn't there anymore. It's a decent book altogether, but I would guess 300 pages of nonsense could be cut out of it, and that would actually IMPROVE things, which is not a good sign for a book that's over 700 pages long. I used to absolutely adore this book. It's still pretty good, but it saddens me that I no longer do. 3 1/2 stars.

This is not remotely the worst Harry Potter book. I will say it's the toughest read. Hardest to get through. It's my least favorite. People have complained about Sirius' death, but despite me finding it somewhat clumsy and heavy-handed, it's not the problem there, or why the book is hard to read. And the book is 870 fucking pages long, but its length isn't much to do with its inaccessibility or the inability for me to enjoy it (although it doesn't help. At all). But out of all of the Harry Potter books Order Of The Phoenix is the most mean-spirited and cruel (which is a statement). Ironically almost all of the heroes come off worse for it too. With the exceptions of Luna Lovegood and Neville Longbottom, there is not a single character in the book I don't think less of when it's over. To be clear, that's not necessarily a writing failure on J.K. Rowling's end. Giving heroes flaws can be good drama. But it IS one of the reasons this shit is tough to get through.

But before I deconstruct every way the characters suck, I will tackle in-depth the biggest failure of the book. I have held my tongue about the saga's various failings over the years. But this one is so big it's one I already mentioned in a previous toothless review of the book.

Dolores Umbridge makes the book hard to read and impossible to enjoy.

At several points I keep having to put down the book because this repulsive character angers me so much. She has zero redeeming qualities. And is quite possibly my least favorite fictional villain of all time. I think Dandy from American Horror Story: Freak Show is worse, but he's the only one I can think of off the top of my head who is.

Stephen King Book Club is still ongoing. A review of You Like It Darker is forthcoming soon. But despite the fact King can ALSO spin a yarn, he is a shit critic. He famously claimed Umbridge was the greatest fictional villain since Hannibal Lecter. King is an erstwhile liberal, but I dislike hearing his opinions about the world in general (and politics and pop-culture in particular) because he routinely says stupid, indefensible shit like that. There is no part of Dolores Umbridge that is anything but a failure.

She's repulsive. She's a manipulative sociopath. She's unnecessarily cruel. And oh, yeah, on top of it, she's incompetent. In order to show how much she sucks Rowling decided to give her no redeeming qualities.

That does not make a good villain.

And honestly, because of the American political situation in 2024, there is a reality to Umbridge's irredeemable repulsiveness. Rowling thought she was demonstrating a character so sadistic it was cartoonish. We are living through a history with a guy nicknamed by many as President Captain Planet Villain. And he might be President again if things go poorly. And maybe people want to praise Rowling for creating such a believable evil person on such a small, unimpressive scale. Umbridge is the banality of evil personified. But just because her cartoonish repulsiveness is now credible, doesn't mean I want to spend any time with her. Or think she's a worthy foe for Harry and his friends. Rowling does not get props from me for making a credible Trump allegory before Trump came along. Because Trump ruins everything. If a reader of Gilda And Meek ever were to praise me for the character of Vic Puff, and say he's a savvy allegory for Donald Trump, I'll tell them to kindly Get Bent. I HATE Vic Puff. He makes the story worse. So much so that I am a decent enough storyteller to understand you need to use a character like that absolutely sparingly. Umbridge is all over this book instead and makes it impossible to enjoy in every scene she is in.

I will say this about Harry Potter And The Order Of The Phoenix. I think this was the first real book to give me a real idea of Rowling's selling points and failings as a storyteller. The failings tie into Umbridge heavily, but I think I'll talk about her storytelling virtues first anyways. And I guess the biggest compliment I can give this book is that the movie version is the worst Harry Potter adaptation of all time. If Rowling wasn't furious about it, I'd be shocked. The movie SHOULD have been split in two, but the best thing about the book is the entirely cinematic climax. I envision Rowling wrote that entire sequence in the Department of Mysteries with a film adaptation in mind, and how awesome the brains, time turners, Baby Death Eater, and spinning rooms would look on the silver screen. But the film absolutely butchered all that to hell. But in order to do it the proper justice the scene would need to be around an hour long, and films can't spend THAT long on a climax. Which I think is bullshit and why the film should have been split in two so they COULD have.

But yeah, that is a pretty canny bit of storytelling magic that reads less like a novel and more like the greatest unproduced screenplay that ever existed.

What are Rowling's failings? Nearly everything else.

I won't deny there are other good parts to the books (and I'll discuss them in a bit) but think this specific book should have sent up red flags about the end of the saga. And yes, this IS something I believe about the seventh book, which I loved. But Rowling's endings are unsatisfying as hell.

She is too afraid to rock the status quo. She is too afraid to show proper consequences to dangerous and evil behavior. Yes, Sirius died because of both Harry and Dumbledore's mistakes. But the last chapter literally has Draco Malfoy threaten to KILL Harry, and McGonagle merely has Crabbe and Goyle carry her luggage away as a punishment. It was a HUGE moment for Draco Malfoy, and a completely dark and disturbing turn, and Rowling immediately normalizes it, in a story with life and death stakes, mind you, as back-to-normal schoolyard rivalry. She's insane.

Similarly after Dolores Umbridge's horrible crimes, the worst punishment she suffers at the end of the book is being chased out of the castle by Peeves.

Rowling is so afraid to change the status quo, she refuses to acknowledge the power and severity of the evil things she shows. She buys it all back at the end, and she does this at the end of every book, even the last. Another unpopular Stephen King opinion about Rowling is that he advised her not to listen to critics about her last book, because speaking as somebody who got shit for how The Dark Tower ended, King correctly pointed out Rowling would get nothing but shit for it.

Now I DO believe the last book is gripping and a tense page-turning read (or at least it was the last time I read it). But satisfying? Rowling was unable to give the readers that.

I thought The Last Prophecy Chapter at the end of the book was quite ineptly written. She is having Dumbledore string the readers along about what the prophecy actually said for goddam pages like she is Howie Mandel or Regis Philbin cutting to commercial before hearing the contestant's answer. It's not riveting, it's annoying. And it's also a "trick" a better writer wouldn't ever need to use. Only poor writers put off telling their stories, and finding excuses NOT to tell them. That's exactly what that chapter boiled down to.

My review is ALL over the map, so I'm gonna give some complaints. This review is already so long and unwieldy I'll give my opinions as they occur instead of in a cohesive narrative order. Just so I don't forget any (which I would otherwise).

The next thing I need to talk about is Luna Lovegood. And let me let you in on a little secret. It's because of stuff like Luna Lovegood that I always gave Rowling the amount of slack I did. Luna Lovegood is a perfect representation of a misfit who doesn't fit in and doesn't give a shit about what other people think about her. She is one of the most empowering fictional outsiders in damn, HISTORY. No exaggeration. This is why Rowling bullying against transgender people was SO fucking damaging. To have her go against a segment of society already on the outside of it was a fundamental betrayal of everything a character like Lovegood made real-world kids who didn't fit in feel. It was unforgivable.

Why is Lovegood such an effective character? I will not entirely compliment Rowling for why I love her. Luna's behavior in the earlier part of the book is kind of ambiguous on a lot of levels. Harry loves Hagrid, Rowling expects the reader does too, so I think when she has Luna (correctly, mind you) point out Hagrid isn't a very good teacher, while the reader isn't sure of Luna, Rowling believes that is mark against her and wants the reader to think so too.

If Rowling thinks that (and I think that's probably what she was going for) she not only doesn't quite grasp how awesome Luna is, but I don't think she understands that Luna doing that is AWESOME. Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe Rowling intended this all along. But Luna badmouthing Hagrid in front of people who love Hagrid is amazing. It's different when Slytherins do it. They are TRYING to get a rise out of Harry. Luna instead is merely fearlessly offering an unpopular opinion and doesn't give a shit who hears it. She's not trying to offend Harry. But if he's offended, that doesn't bother her either way. It's not up to her to justify what a shitty teacher and person and Hagrid is, even to his friends.

And again, there's a possibility I'm not giving Rowling the proper due here, and that's the moral she was going for all along. But somehow I doubt it. That seems to me a conclusion that would probably be reached by a more solid and truthful writer than she is.

Harry's behavior in the book is pretty indefensible at all points. I think Rowling is trying to say his teenage hormones are making him extra cranky, but some of the shit he says and does is ridiculously stupid. Playing The Hero at the end with Sirius is just the tip of the iceberg.

I resent that Harry had to be told by Hermione that he was treating Cho shittily in the tea shop. And the worst part is, and why Rowling is a poor writer, is it's framed as Hermione understanding the mysteries of women and how to handle their unknowable mood swings.

That's bullshit. Harry was a complete shithead in that tea shop. Not speaking as a man insensitive to a woman's needs. But as a person insensitive to another person's needs. None of the shitty and ignorant things Harry said and did in that tea shop were done because Harry is a man. They were done because Harry is an asshole. And Hermione telling him he should have told Cho that he thinks Hermione is ugly is why Rowling should get no credit from feminists. If he was honest with her, Hermione's appearance would not come up at all. Rowling is a mean, stupid, ignorant writer (and person) because she thinks Hermione thinks it would be relevant. Bullshit.

And again, Asians pissed off that Cho Chang is basically best known for dating people, crying, and defending a piece of shit traitor friend, you are right to be pissed. And yes, the name sounding like Ching Chong is another thing that shows Rowling is the furthest thing from racially sensitive.

Time to talk about Snape. Specifically Snape's Worst Memory. I love how layered the memory is because both the reader and Harry assumes Snape is ashamed of the memory because James Potter humiliated him. We later learn he's ashamed because he calls the woman he is in love with, Lily Evans, a Mudblood, and once he did that, he lost her potential love forever. His regret is not James, it's Lily. And I fucking LOVE that in hindsight. I really ought to be giving Rowling accolades for that.

But damn it, remember when I said Rowling refuses to either satisfy the reader or change the status quo? If I was given this exact manuscript and could change anything in it, it would be the fall-out from that.

I understand that Harry needs to stop the Occlumency lessons to fall for Voldemort's trick at the end. Personally, I think it would have been much less dramatically interesting than if Harry had actually taken his regret about what he saw, and was real and honest to Snape about how ashamed he was his father did that.

Speaking as a writer who loves juicy drama, that would have been awesome. You can say "Matt, Harry's a kid lacking that kind of insight and wisdom," but he's also a fictional character and can be insightful and wise if Rowling chooses for him to be. To me it would have dramatic gold if Harry had walked up to him and said "I know things have been difficult between us, but it turns out you were absolutely right about what a arrogant shithead my father was, and if he's not around to apologize for her shitty behavior that day, I will."

And it would have been dramatic gold for Snape to question the sincerity of the apology and suggest Harry has ulterior motives for it. But the proper capper to Snape dismissing the apology would be Harry saying "I get why you think that. But you're wrong, and I'm going to do everything in my power going forward to prove it to you. Things have changed between us now whether you can admit it or not."

And maybe if he had done that, Sirius wouldn't have died and the book would lose that dramatic hook. But can you imagine the weight a genuine truce between Harry and Snape would give the NEXT book with the Unbreakable Vow and Snape's deep cover fake-out with Voldemort? If they had come to an understanding here, Snape killing Dumbledore would be a thousand times the shock it already is, and a far bigger betrayal than if Harry didn't already hate him. But that would upset the status quo in Slytherin, and Rowling is not a big enough thinker to see the value in doing that. Resetting those relationships, especially if Ron and the other Gryffindors still hate Snape, would bring up AMAZING dramatic opportunities, even before Snape killed Dumbledore on Dumbledore's orders to protect his cover, and save Draco Malfoy's life. Indeed that would add a ton of heartbreak and drama for Harry when that happened.

As a writer, Rowling is timid. Rowling is afraid to go outside of her comfort zone, even if all of the horrible shit she's crowded her comfort zone with has turned it uncomfortable. That doesn't impress me.

Other notes (as they come to me).

I loved the Dursley chapters and the incongruity of the Wizarding World effecting Privet Drive. It's the first chapter I kind of started to like the Dursleys. Face it, as shitty as they are, they are taking a mortal risk by raising Harry. Petunia understands this. My favorite bits of this were Harry asking her if she was in contact with wizards (which is the right question we frustratingly didn't get a proper answer to) and when Vernon tells him he's locking the door to his room I love Harry saying "You do that." It's a human response, which I like, because Rowling isn't very good at those usually, so whenever they occur, I treasure them.

Fred and George's exit from Hogwarts was pretty memorable. Peeves is one of the most annoying characters, and so obnoxious, he was essentially cut out of the films for it, but that's his only good moment. Ever.

Hermione's shit with the House-Elves might have been an interesting controversy but Rowling stubbornly refuses to reach the right conclusion. Hermione is a BAD GUY for hiding clothes she knits for the House-Elves to find. And I agree that's a shit move. But I shouldn't ever be made to think freeing a slave under ANY circumstances is a shit move. That is a story failing. It's weird Rowling wants me to believe otherwise. She is a shitty human being for trying to push the other moral.

Likewise, Sirius' treatment of Kreacher is similarly disgusting, and when Harry accuses Dumbledore of suggesting Sirius had it coming, I wouldn't have backed down were I Albus. I'd be like, "You are hurting and want me to feel shame about saying a true thing about your Godfather, but tough shit, he was an asshole there."

Dumbledore's words in general at the end are infuriating. I know Dumbledore is not a fucking therapist. But he's a human being. Can he not understand how enraging talking about the normalcy of Harry's pain is and that he understands it? Goddam, Albus is a fucking ass there. And Rowling is a shitty writer.

I mentioned in the last review Sirius says the wisest thing in that book and the wisest thing in this book. Both things turn out to be untrue.

Sirius says here the world is not split between good people and Death Eaters. Damn good point, Sirius! Of course, he's WRONG! Umbridge, in fact, gleefully joins the program once Voldemort takes over in the last book, and IS in fact on the side of the Death Eaters, if not one herself. That would have a perfect moral to be true. And the bitch is it's possible Sirius should have been allowed to say that about a different character that IS true of. Like Snape, for instance. See what I mean about Rowling always taking the dramatically easy way out?

Mrs. Weasley continues to unimpress me. Not for her protectiveness of Harry at the beginning. But for having the argument in front of Sirius and Lupin. It is a mark of pure immaturity on her end that she talks about child-rearing with those two in FRONT of the child in question. Rowling might think it's interesting drama. It says that Mrs. Weasley is actually both a shitty parent and a shitty adult authority figure too.

Neville's arc of improving in the D.A. is another very good thing about the book. I am SO rooting for him. But he got so good so fast I have no idea why Harry would not have chosen him as one of the 3 extra D.A. members to come along on the rescue mission.

Everything Hagrid does in the book proves he was right to be sacked. And not by Umbridge. If Dumbledore had ANY sense, Hagrid would already be gone from Hogwarts.

The things Malfoy says at the end of the first Quidditch match are not just cruel. They seem unnecessarily cruel. It's telling that's the kind of thing Rowling believe crosses the actual line. You might almost think the woman is an amoral sociopath. And yeah, I would worry about ANYONE who could write a scene like that so effortlessly. That? That's BAD drama, right there. Good and bad drama are entirely different things. In Rowling's defense, she is far from the only writer who doesn't understand the difference. I would argue in fact MOST writers and creators of currently popular culture do not understand the distinction does, or at least SHOULD, exist. You won't love me for claiming that, but I think it's true.

One of the things I loved was Firenze's role and class lesson. It was SO refreshing to get a different nonhuman perspective. I especially love that it resonated with Harry, and he thought it was cool and unusual. I love Firenze calling Trelawney's ideas "Human nonsense." And I love that some of the class is offended. What's interesting is Harry learns that Firenze thinks Divination is near impossible for humans, still incredibly difficult for centaurs, and only with years of practice, and even centaurs still often misread the signs. The lesson of the future being unknowable is refreshing, and I dig it. The writing in that section was all solid.

Do you know what I don't dig? The prophecy at the end. Tell me again how this story is about choices again, J.K. It is to laugh.

I thought Harry was a stupid shithead all throughout the book, but Hermione was somehow even stupider with the centaurs at the end. This specific offensive thing she said, is something someone as knowledgeable as she is always portrayed, should already know not to say. It's bad enough Harry spends the book suffering from plot-related stupidity. Rowling gets wet noodle lashes for doing that to fucking Hermione! The noive!

Speaking of plot-related stupidity, how dumb is Harry that he forgot Snape was still at Hogwarts, and he could have gone to HIM with his worries about Sirius, since he was an Order member, and probably have done ALL of this without Umbridge finding out? The idea that he blames Snape for what happened at the end, when HE is the one who should have gone to Snape first is rich. Dumbledore also had a pretty good excuse not to blame Snape for Sirius taking his insults to heart: Sirius is a fucking adult, with his own agency, who made his own choices. Nice story about choices there, Rowling, that you refuse to even have your hero believe in them.

Winky's depressing ending is the first hint that Rowling doesn't actually give a shit about the immorality of the House-Elf situation, or even that she understands WHY the entire thing is immoral.

Phineas Nigellus' reaction to Dumbledore's escape was pretty funny.

I never liked Seamus Finnigan, but I think he's a little turd here. So what if he think Harry's is full of shit about Voldemort being back? Lavender Brown thought that too and didn't directly accuse him of it. It's not just that Seamus is wrong which is why that pissed me off. It's because it's rude and tacky. There was absolutely no reason to say it.

Loved Neville attacking Malfoy for the St. Mungo's crack. Get 'im, Neville!

It is not lost on me that Harry is far more bullying and cruel to Dudley Dursley at the beginning of the book than the other way around for the first time ever. The story venerates bullying. Rowling being what she is should NOT have been a surprise. But damn it, Luna still meant it was! It fucking hurt. Let me tell you that.

We covered everything? Yeah, I think so. But if you think this review was a slog? Nothing on the book. 3 stars.

The thing that kills me is I think the book being as good as it is is almost an accident on J.K. Rowling's end. I don't think she was smart enough when she wrote it to understand how awesome it is, and the reasons it is awesome. It is unusual that a creator understands their work less than the fans of the work, but that rare happening tends to occur for broadly popular, easily accessible stuff like Harry Potter. But I don't think Rowling actually appreciates or understands why both this book and the entire Harry Potter saga work.

No matter what you think about J.K. Rowling, she created one of the best fictional villains in living memory. Not Voldemort, silly. Severus Snape. Snape has always been my favorite character, and I believe he's MANY people's favorite character too. We root for him in a way we don't any of the other antagonists. And the reason I think this book being awesome is an accident, and that Rowling doesn't actually understanding the significance of what she's done, is the simple appalling fact that in every single interview I've seen Rowling give, she strongly dislikes Severus Snape.

He's the best thing she's ever done. Readers everywhere find him fascinating, charismatic, and glamorous, and his morality delightfully ambiguous. But no, in every interview Rowling does she reiterates Snape is an abusive teacher to Harry Potter (ignoring that Harry treats HIM quite shittily in his own right) and that every move he's done on the side of the good guys is down to selfishness and narcissism. Rowling created one of the most INTERESTING fictional characters in recent literature, and in every interview she insists Snape is MUCH less interesting and worthy of praise for characterization than the reader interprets. There is something deeply wrong with Rowling's writing skills if she is completely unable to recognize her own strengths about something like that. She created an amazing character like Severus Snape without ever once realizing he's amazing. All of the unusual and unique things readers love about the character? Rowling is quick to insist those things are not even present. Am I wrong in not being impressed with Rowling's writing skills in that scenario, even if the book IS a gem? I think not.

I don't think this review will be as long as Order Of The Phoenix, thank God, but it will also not be very cohesive either, and also told in the order it comes to me, rather than the order the prose reads best.

If anything Luna Lovegood makes an even more positive impression in this book than she did in the last one. I think the early chapter with Harry, Neville, and Luna on the Hogwarts Express was brilliant. In the previous book when Cho comes into their compartment Harry is embarrassed by their company. In this book, after he trusts them and has befriended them, because of the ordeal at the Ministry Of Magic when people look in the cabin, and start talking shit, instead of feeling embarrassed, Harry sticks up for them. Luna saying people expect him to have cooler friends suggests that Luna is not actually crazy and knows the real score. She's insightful, and weird chicks rock (and always did).

I loved Harry taking her to Slughorn's party as a friend, mostly because she was so excited and happy. The best part is the second after Harry does that kindness, he half-regrets it, which is very realistic for a kid Harry's age. But it works out for the best.

Luna's Quidditch commentary is as great as Ron insisted it was.

I love that Luna says that Ron isn't always very nice. Harry calls that embarrassing honesty. But when you reread all seven books, wherever there is a major falling out in the Trio, whenever their friendship is permanently threatened, Ron is ALWAYS the main catalyst. And USUALLY the actual instigator. He is not a nice dude at all.

I might object less to the Harry / Ginny ship if Rowling knew how to write it. Ron and Hermione is awkward, but Rowling put in the legwork there, so I could see it. I could also see Harry and Hermione. Harry and Ginny seems to randomly come out of nowhere. And it's poorly written. When Harry believe that Ginny has become "The heart and soul of the team" that is some of the shoddiest prose Rowling has ever written, and his entire self-sacrificing relationship at the end with her seems to be an unpleasant rip-off of Peter Parker and Mary-Jane Watson from the early Spider-Man films. It's trite as fuck is what I'm saying.

So Rowling has no clue that the best character she ever created is interesting instead of boring. What are we to make of the Pensieve Flashbacks and inevitable Horcrux Hunt?

Elements of the Horcruxes SORT of fit into the earlier books, but not EASILY, and this very much feels out of left field, and turning the erstwhile school drama instead a quest series. Do all of the real-world educators, grateful that Rowling has gotten kids interested in reading, really appreciate that it appears the protagonist of her saga is an actual high-school drop-out? I dunno.

Similarly, Rowling claims the librarian Madame Pince is horrible because if she were helpful like real-world librarians are, Harry and friends would get to the answers too easily. Somehow that excuse doesn't impress me. If you can't think of a way to make your heroes successful without taking a shit on librarians, maybe you aren't a good writer. That's where I land there.

I loved the Pensieve stuff for how dark and varied it was. It opened up the world like nothing else. Similarly impressive were the first two chapters "The Other Minister" and "Spinner's End". Snape's Unbreakable Vow was a DAMN good hook, even if Rowling doesn't seem to understand it is one. The fucked up thing is Snape being on Dumbledore's side IS played at the surprise twist in the final book to the READER. Rowling thinks it's not really relevant or neither here nor there. I am just supposed the think the dude Harry named his FUCKING son after was a scumbag deep down and just accept her judgment there after the fact. No, that doesn't make any sense to ME either.

I love that Kreacher gives Harry a package of maggots for Christmas and when Ron makes, fun, Harry quips he prefers them to the necklace. Ouch.

I think Horace Slughorn is long overdue. I think an openly good Slytherin, completely against the dark arts and the Death Eaters is something we should have gotten all along. And let it be said, Slughorn's version of ambition is the actual definition of the word. Slytherin and Voldemort's Pure-Blood lunacy and bigotry have NOTHING to do with ambition, so it's frustrating as fuck that is what the House is best known for.

I love Snape, but I think he gets a raw deal in both this book and the next one, probably because Rowling doesn't understand that readers love him and she treats him as if we hate him. She is not a good barometer of the fandom there, (or about much else in hindsight, to be honest).

How does Snape get a raw deal here? Every bit of evidence against him is occurring because Harry Potter is a shithead. If Harry actually did NOT suck ass at Occlumency, he would have been let in on the scheme between Snape and Dumbledore to kill the Headmaster to protect Draco and keep Snape's cover. Because Harry sucks he has to be kept in the dark about this crucial thing. Honestly if you think about it, Dumbledore forcing Snape to do that is the cruelest thing Dumbledore does to Snape. Because regardless of whether Harry understands it or not, Snape had friends at Hogwarts. He got on well with both McGonagle and Hagrid. Dumbledore forcing him to kill him to keep his cover basically made him a pariah with the last people on who Earth who actually trust him, cared about him, and accepted him. And the reason I think less of Rowling as a writer is because that aspect of the sacrifice has never been explored in the story. Much less acknowledged by Rowling after the fact. Yeah, Rowling wrote a gem. But like a LOT of popular culture that gets a bit bigger than its creator envisioned, it being amazing is probably a lucky coincidence. I think talent on Rowling's end has little to do with it.

Harry's manipulations of Slughorn were brilliant. When he tells him to be brave like his mother was I was like "Yes!" Harry Potter is not awesome enough for my my liking. And when Harry is impressed at Voldemort's skills at wheedling info from Slughorn upon seeing the true memory, it's cool that it comes from a place where HE has to do that all the time himself, and game recognizes game.

The idea that the Defense Against The Dark Arts teaching position has been jinxed for decades is an actual retcon. All five earlier books made the short term nature of the jobs seem like a VERY recent development, that literally started when Harry himself started Hogwarts. Calling b.s. on this "revelation" here. It don't fit.

One last observation. I think Rufus Scrimgeour sucks. And he sucks because Rowling is not a good writer. Him not sucking might actually be interesting. But the second Harry Potter rebuffs his idea to show the Ministry support, Scrimgeour shows Harry open contempt. Does Rowling actually know a THING about politicians? Yes, the first chapter ending with Fudge telling the Prime Minister than the other side knows magic too is a great way to cap the first chapter on politics, but real politicians would see Harry's obstinance there and try to wear him down. By finding out what he fucking wants! Not just declaring him Dumbledore's man and storming off. Getting Harry's support is a HUGE ask, so maybe, yeah, Harry is entitled to GET something out of it. Stan Shunpike released? Done! Dolores Umbridge put in Azkaban? Done! A smarter politician than Scrimgeour wouldn't be promising Harry the career he's already destined for. He'd be offering help and power that Harry could not afford to refuse, or get anywhere else. And do you know the messed up thing? That would be interesting drama! The Apple in the Garden of Eden to tempt Harry Potter! What a story hook! Rowling always thinks the saga is smaller and more boring than it actually is. That does not impress me.

In the end, I love the left turns the book takes, and how it shows a lot of awesome stuff. What I love less is that the Author doesn't actually seem to understand a lot of the awesome stuff she shows IS awesome, and thinks the readers would be better off believing it predictable and mundane instead.

I don't understand that bit either. 4 1/2 stars.

And I love that the climax is done in front of the whole school and everyone is involved. So a perfect ending, no?

No. I am unsatisfied.

No firm consequences for the Malfoys and Umbridge are bad enough. I also was extremely disappointed in the lack of either drama or resolution with Harry's goodbye with the Dursleys. But it's Snape's ending that rankles me most of all.

Don't misunderstand me. The Prince's Tale explains EVERYTHING (and as far as the curse against George Weasley went, more than it needed to) and the revelations of his love for Lily give added context to Petunia's comments about "That nasty boy coming around" in the fifth book, as well as the true reason Snape's Worst Memory is the worst. It's also effective for making the reader fully believe his remorse over Voldemort killing the Potters is genuine. And yet.. And yet...

Where is the final confrontation between him and Harry? Why couldn't they has all this out in person, and either come to an understanding, or at least be HONEST with each other that this whole feud is fucking stupid and counterproductive? Harry is also denied similar catharsis with Draco Malfoy, and while I LOVE that the climax is "All Talk" (which the movie version wrecks) I think Voldemort was not the ONLY enemy of Harry's he needed to have it out with. Rowling HATES Snape, but she expects Snape fans to be happy Harry named his son after him. Without actual catharsis, it doesn't hit me as hard as it should.

But still, how awesome is The Prince's Tale? I got a lump in my throat a couple of times, and it's the only place in the book series I did. "Always." Sniff.

Another thing I don't like is the Imperiused Stan Shunpike. Stan's release from Azkaban was one of Harry's sticking points for refusing to work with the Ministry in the last book, and if it turns out he's working with the Death Eaters after all, Harry looks like kind of a dumbass for it in hindsight.

Ron is an asshole during a large portion of the book (which is on-brand for him, honestly) but him hugging Harry like a brother upon his return was a big moment. I also love Hermione punching every inch of him. The idea that she crossed her arms and legs and didn't look like she'd uncross them for years was a surprisingly saucy observation.

The Godric's Hollow chapter is both moving and spooky.

Voldemort sucks throughout the book, and the best demonstration is during the flashback of him killing the Potters, and him being tempted to kill a Muggle child on Halloween, but putting the wand away because it was "Unnecessary. Most unnecessary." The level of sociopathy of the character is easily demonstrated just by that. He's actually tempted. He sucks.

Harry telling off Lupin for being a shitty father and husband was great, but I really wish Rowling hadn't had Harry immediately second-guess it after he stormed out. I would have respected Harry more if he hadn't, and told Ron and Hermione to fuck off for their protestations after the fact. Lupin is weak.

"Severus Snape was never yours," is not just the most memorable line of the book. It's my favorite too. I guess I accepted Snape being done so dirty back in the day because at least Harry publicly exonerated him in front of everyone. God, seeing how much the teachers now loathe him is heartbreaking on some level. Despite me wishing for a better ending to Harry and Snape's feud, Harry publicly telling everyone who mattered that Snape was a good guy and on Dumbledore's side was a decent consolation prize.

Luna's parts in the book were good (I love the positive impression she made on Ollivander and her friend mural was excellent too) but her father is a turd.

Neville is a force of nature in the book, which pisses me off that Rowling gave him the last name Longbottom in the first book. You can only be SO badass with that last name. There's a reason a dude named Jason Statham is an action star, and a guy named Corey Statham is not. For badasses, the name is a huge part of it.

And yeah, Ollivander's small part was good especially Harry remembering why he didn't exactly like him.

It's amusing, maddening, and ballsy that Harry kills Voldemort only by use of a legal technicality involving The Elder Wand. Harry wins because he is technically correct, which is the best kind of correct.

It's Rowling though. Any problems?

A few. But fewer than most of the other books. The worst thing is the portrayal of Griphook and the Goblins. There is definite Antisemitism attached to their characters and gimmicks. Still Bill Weasley's perspective of them is kind of interesting, even if the goblins themselves are kind of offensive.

But truly the thing I hate most is the moral of Kreacher. Rowling concludes slavery is all right, so long as you are NICE to the slaves.

Yeah, Rowling did NOT think this thing through. Or if she did, she's an idiot.

And Umbridge escaping the book without consequences especially rankles. I don't give a shit that Rowling wrote essays on Pottermore stating she went to Azkaban. Rowling lets far too many villains in her saga get off Scot-free in the books themselves, and having that happen to UMBRIDGE of all people is fucking inexcusable.

I also agree with both Harry and Ron's rage that Dumbledore left them with almost no information of how to accomplish their goal. Them getting to the right answers anyways was pure luck. Dumbledore's excuses as to WHY he made it hard in the King's Cross chapter don't hold an ounce of water. This was bad writing on Rowling's end.

Speaking of which, saying Colin Creevey "was tiny in death" is the prose of a pure hack. As was the final sentence of a seven book series being "All was well." For real. Rowling shows some major prose skills in both The Prince's Tale and The Flaw In The Plan. But shit like that is inexcusable, especially this late in the game.

The 19 Years Later Epilogue in and of itself is an utterly underwhelming conclusion, but it DID make a good jumping off point for Harry Potter And The Cursed Child. I'll give it that.

People are gonna cry retcon about both Grindelwald's importance and the Invisibility Cloak's significance as a Death Hallow. I agree the Cloak is a pure retcon, but Grindelwald being mentioned ONCE in the first book, and this whole huge backstory being held off until the last book is very much how Rowling operates. I found it a perfectly fair twist.

I loved the book back when I first read it. Now? I want more. A LOT more. It's a great book, and maybe I should judge it more on what it is than what it isn't. But that doesn't stop me from being annoyed Harry is not allowed a final blow-out with Snape. It had been building for six books and to never get it feels wrong. 5 1/2 stars.

The book is hella short too, and easy to get through for that reason. I like. 4 stars.

Still, the sport's popularity, despite the brutality of both the players AND fans, always unsettled me. This book does little to change those perceptions. 3 stars.

Like the two previous books in the Hogwarts Library series, is it super short (there are only five tales) and Rowling initially made the book a six-copy limited addition, with the prose written down herself in all six copies. She got permission from the six people she wrote it for to make a mass-market edition and here it is. Of the Hogwarts Library books, it's probably my favorite, but that's mostly down to Dumbledore's notes. The introduction also says that Professor McGonagle became Headmistress of Hogwarts after Snape's death, so it's not like the book doesn't tell us new things about the canon after Deathly Hallows. Overall: 4 stars.

Now to review the individual stories:

The Wizard And The Hopping Pot

Interestingly, Dumbledore's commentary is far more interesting than the story itself. Especially since the footnotes actual give a legit history to the death of Gryffindor Ghost Nearly Headless Nick. 3 1/2 stars.

The Fountain Of Fair Fortune

I love this story, and the perfect twist ending. It is the story in the book most like a traditional fairytale, which if you think about it, it a pretty impressive feat to pull off.

I have disparaged Rowling greatly in these recent reviews, but it's not like she has NO talent. 5 stars.

The Warlock's Hairy Heart

Gruesome. Just gruesome. 2 1/2 stars.

Babbitty Rabbitty And Her Cackling Stump

As a story it's just so-so, but the notes by Dumbledore are interesting. We learn a bit about the magic of portraits in them, as well as further clarifications that Animagi retain their human minds (although this has been disputed elsewhere in the canon). 3 stars.

The Tale Of The Three Brothers

This one most resembles a Folk Tale, and like The Fountain Of Fair Fortune, it is credible for that. It is the one tale in the book we've already read (Hermione reads it aloud in Harry Potter And The Deathly Hallows). The tale is good, and the commentary by Dumbledore is interesting, if a bit intentionally misleading (Dumbledore himself owned the Elder Wand as of the time of writing his notes, had already encountered the perfect Invisibility Cloak, and might have even already found the Resurrection Stone during his Horcrux Hunt.)

It's a good story. 4 stars.