But then she goes and throws in that slap to Snape about getting sorted too soon.
He wanted to be sorted into Slytherin on the train. His mother, or someone else close, must have been in Slytherin, too. She absolutely dissed 1/4 of the WW with that one, not to mention had the Supreme Mugwump of the Good Guys dis "one of the bravest men" in the series, and possibly his mother.
We do need to see Draco do more than simply refuse to rat out the Trio.
Draco seemed uncomfortable when we saw him at Malfoy Manor, even in chapter one, which was not Harry's POV. Then, in the RoR/RoHT, he was all SuperDE and out to get Potter. Crabbe and Goyle, I can see. Why throw Draco in, other than to answer Narcissa's question later on?
(BTW, Narcissa's a great sneak, and Trelawney has balls)
I really can't wait until the fans ask her about the Unforgiveables, too.
Right. If Barty and his Aurors were wrong, then Harry, McGonagall, and, I assume, Molly, were wrong. There was still a double standard. And, it was upheld by Dumbledore in ch. 33, when he intimated that it was intention that split the soul in killing. He didn't want Draco to split his soul, but when Snape asked about his soul, he gave the old line about helping an old man avoid pain and humiliation.
And I think an important difference was that, although the story arcs are pre-planned, there was enough room to incorporate the story offers that came up--instead of simply letting them drop.
I think the major problem was writing the epilogue before the series was even started. She locked herself into things that maybe didn't quite build up for her as she wrote - like Harry and Ginny. Characters do try to influence their destinies (so much for predestination in writing!) - Arthur got his reprieve in OotP, and someone got axed (in DH?) which was not in the plan.
On Arthur's reprieve, it seems to me that she couldn't have him die, since he was their link to the Ministry, unless she had meant for Percy to redeem himself sooner and be the link, with his close ties to the office of Minister. Heh. If so, then Percy's been "redeemed" since OotP, because he saved Arthur's life by not cooperating with his Creatrix.
An outline would have given more leeway to explore things, I think, and more room to tinker as stories wrote their own subplots. But what I don't get is, why didn't she foreshadow the Hallows, as merely an interesting piece of WW lore: they have their own fairy stories for kids, and they use them as cultural references the way we do. We talk about a "Cinderella Story", they could say something about surprising magic like, "It's like you had the Elder Wand!" It wouldn't have given too much away, IMO, to do something like that every so often, and it wouldn't have looked like a contrivance for the necessity of DH... IMO, of course.
Re: Hello!
He wanted to be sorted into Slytherin on the train. His mother, or someone else close, must have been in Slytherin, too. She absolutely dissed 1/4 of the WW with that one, not to mention had the Supreme Mugwump of the Good Guys dis "one of the bravest men" in the series, and possibly his mother.
We do need to see Draco do more than simply refuse to rat out the Trio.
Draco seemed uncomfortable when we saw him at Malfoy Manor, even in chapter one, which was not Harry's POV. Then, in the RoR/RoHT, he was all SuperDE and out to get Potter. Crabbe and Goyle, I can see. Why throw Draco in, other than to answer Narcissa's question later on?
(BTW, Narcissa's a great sneak, and Trelawney has balls)
I really can't wait until the fans ask her about the Unforgiveables, too.
Right. If Barty and his Aurors were wrong, then Harry, McGonagall, and, I assume, Molly, were wrong. There was still a double standard. And, it was upheld by Dumbledore in ch. 33, when he intimated that it was intention that split the soul in killing. He didn't want Draco to split his soul, but when Snape asked about his soul, he gave the old line about helping an old man avoid pain and humiliation.
And I think an important difference was that, although the story arcs are pre-planned, there was enough room to incorporate the story offers that came up--instead of simply letting them drop.
I think the major problem was writing the epilogue before the series was even started. She locked herself into things that maybe didn't quite build up for her as she wrote - like Harry and Ginny. Characters do try to influence their destinies (so much for predestination in writing!) - Arthur got his reprieve in OotP, and someone got axed (in DH?) which was not in the plan.
On Arthur's reprieve, it seems to me that she couldn't have him die, since he was their link to the Ministry, unless she had meant for Percy to redeem himself sooner and be the link, with his close ties to the office of Minister. Heh. If so, then Percy's been "redeemed" since OotP, because he saved Arthur's life by not cooperating with his Creatrix.
An outline would have given more leeway to explore things, I think, and more room to tinker as stories wrote their own subplots. But what I don't get is, why didn't she foreshadow the Hallows, as merely an interesting piece of WW lore: they have their own fairy stories for kids, and they use them as cultural references the way we do. We talk about a "Cinderella Story", they could say something about surprising magic like, "It's like you had the Elder Wand!" It wouldn't have given too much away, IMO, to do something like that every so often, and it wouldn't have looked like a contrivance for the necessity of DH... IMO, of course.