Berni Phillips wrote:
> There was not much new except for Fred's and George's joke-shop inventions,
> which weren't terribly amusing to the reader.
I agree--I thought they were positively tedious, despite their usefulness against
> No, he doesn't really grow. He's stuck in an adolescent state of hormones
> and rebelliousness that isn't terribly attractive.
This was part of the problem with the book: over the course of some 870 pages, a
little growth would be good, even if as you rightly say this is a "transitional
Also, I entirely agree with you about Ginny and Neville, although Ron and
Hermione seemed a little flatter as characters.
> I found the death of Sirius didn't really touch me that much. He, too, was
> much less appealing in this book. We saw him as a teen, egging on James to
> torment Snape. He tries to live vicariously through Harry, egging him on to
> what he shouldn't. His death was nowhere near as touching as the torment
> Mrs. Weasley went through with the boggart showing her all her loved ones
This is exactly the kind of thing that was problematic to me. And because you
don't feel strongly about the death of Sirius--a character I had really liked in
the previous books--Harry's anger at Dumbledore seems forced and too peevish.
Also, the confrontation between Harry and Dumbledore opened up enormous
imaginative possibilities that, it seemed to me, never came to fruition. I hate
it when I am imagining something better than what is in the book! I also found
myself circling clunky phraseology. (Maybe I was just getting cranky from doing
so much writing of my own.)
> It was good to get a good reason why Harry has to return to Privet Drive
> each summer and also that the Sorting Hat had wanted to put Hermione in
> Ravenclaw, where she so clearly belongs.
Again, couldn't agree more--but more could have been, should have been, done with
Berni, I appreciated all your comments