A small Harry Potter break in the blogging…. and we’re back and grumpy
Am reading Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows with spare time. [It took you five days to get the book?–ed. No, it took the Official Blogwife that many days to read it and then give it to me.] Everyone go away for a while. Like Megan McArdle, I’m going into semi-withdrawal for a few days. ...
Am reading Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows with spare time. [It took you five days to get the book?--ed. No, it took the Official Blogwife that many days to read it and then give it to me.] Everyone go away for a while. Like Megan McArdle, I'm going into semi-withdrawal for a few days. UPDATE: Is it just me, or does anyone else derive satisfaction from tearing through Rowling at warp speed? I normally don't plow through 750 page books in a day, but I always read Harry Potter about twice as fast as other books. My hunch is that Michael Berube is correct -- the books are a combination of a fully imagined world and the pure essence of plot and narrative. I feel the same way reading a Harry Potter book as I do when I was running a really fast wind sprint. ANOTHER UPDATE: Fans of both Harry Potter and the Sopranos should really click here. FINAL UPDATE: OK, I've finished the book and opened the comment thread back up. My critical take on the book appears after the jump [WARNING: MASSIVE PLOT SPOILERS AHEAD]: I have to say, I thought Deathly Hallows was the weakest of the bunch. Part of this was inevitable -- the ending can't satisfy everyone, a lot of loose ends needed tying up, and there is a clear tension between what Rowling's adult fans and younger fans wanted to see happen. These tensions existed in the previous books as well, but Rowling was always able to kick the can down the road in the earlier volumes. As a reader, I was always confident that unanswered questions (what is Snape up to?) would be dealt with before the series ended. Now that the series has ended, however, there are still a bunch of cans lying on the road. Rowling has always been able to control her unruly plots, but when I finished this book, I had a hell of a lot of questions: 1) How the bloody hell does the sword of Gryffindor get into the friggin' Sorting Hat? UPDATE: I knew Wikipedia had its uses: "The two items share a particular bond; whenever a "true Gryffindor" needs it, the Sword will let itself be pulled out of the hat." 2) Does anyone completely buy Dumbledore's explanation for why Harry survived Voldemort's attack in the forrest? Reminded me a wee bit of this. 3) What purpose does the Deathly Hollows portion of the plot serve? 4) Why does Rowling completely whiff on Draco Malfoy's character? She sets him up for some interesting character developments at the end of Half-Blood Prince. In Deathly Hallows, Potter saves him, he's alreay feeling unsure about Voldemort, and he still tries to join the Death Eaters? More generally, I'm with Russell Arben Fox on this: "I wanted to see Horace Slughorn lay it on the line to the Slytherin students, shut Pansy Parkinson up, and demonstrate (as Phineas Nigellus insisted) that there's a real reason for Slytherin House after all." 5) Is it just me or does the final duel between Potter and Voldemort revolve around.... correctly defining the property rights of wands?! 6) This one is the biggest, and touches on Megan Mcardle's complaint that, "most of [the characters] spend the latter books pointlessly withholding information from each other that, if shared, would end the installment somewhere around page ten." Let's see if I have this straight: At the last minute, Harry Potter needs to be told that he has a Horcrux in him and must be willing to die when he faces Voldemort. Following secured, compartmentalized information protocol, Dumbledore entrusts this information to Snape and Snape alone. Dumbledore then has Snape promising to kill him at the right moment -- which he does, in front of Harry Potter, who has no idea why this is happening. So, here's my question -- how in the hell was Snape ever going to relay the necessary information to Potter in a way that Potter would have believed him? Harry hates Snape -- how could he possible have believed him? Rowling comes up with a way, but surely Dubledore could not have counted on this serendipitous series of events taking place. Even Potter knew to tell Neville about dispatching Nagini before he heads into the woods, because Ron and Hermione might not make it. Why didn't Dumbledore also tell McGonagall or Mad-Eye this crucial bit of info? It wasn't all bad. The scene with Harry walking to his doom, accompanied by all the dead who love him, was particularly affecting. The battle of Hogwarts was friggin' awesome (one looks forward to seeing that on film). Rowling always knows when to surprise with the humor. And I think I liked the epilogue more than most -- Harry and his friends have more than earned their happiness. On the whole, though, Michiko Kakutani is full of it -- Dealthly Hallows is a disappointment. For other takes, see Russell Arben Fox, Ross Douthat, and Slate's Book Club. Rowling provides a few more details about the epilogue here.
Am reading Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows with spare time. [It took you five days to get the book?–ed. No, it took the Official Blogwife that many days to read it and then give it to me.] Everyone go away for a while. Like Megan McArdle, I’m going into semi-withdrawal for a few days. UPDATE: Is it just me, or does anyone else derive satisfaction from tearing through Rowling at warp speed? I normally don’t plow through 750 page books in a day, but I always read Harry Potter about twice as fast as other books. My hunch is that Michael Berube is correct — the books are a combination of a fully imagined world and the pure essence of plot and narrative. I feel the same way reading a Harry Potter book as I do when I was running a really fast wind sprint. ANOTHER UPDATE: Fans of both Harry Potter and the Sopranos should really click here. FINAL UPDATE: OK, I’ve finished the book and opened the comment thread back up. My critical take on the book appears after the jump [WARNING: MASSIVE PLOT SPOILERS AHEAD]: I have to say, I thought Deathly Hallows was the weakest of the bunch. Part of this was inevitable — the ending can’t satisfy everyone, a lot of loose ends needed tying up, and there is a clear tension between what Rowling’s adult fans and younger fans wanted to see happen. These tensions existed in the previous books as well, but Rowling was always able to kick the can down the road in the earlier volumes. As a reader, I was always confident that unanswered questions (what is Snape up to?) would be dealt with before the series ended. Now that the series has ended, however, there are still a bunch of cans lying on the road. Rowling has always been able to control her unruly plots, but when I finished this book, I had a hell of a lot of questions:
1) How the bloody hell does the sword of Gryffindor get into the friggin’ Sorting Hat? UPDATE: I knew Wikipedia had its uses: “The two items share a particular bond; whenever a “true Gryffindor” needs it, the Sword will let itself be pulled out of the hat.” 2) Does anyone completely buy Dumbledore’s explanation for why Harry survived Voldemort’s attack in the forrest? Reminded me a wee bit of this. 3) What purpose does the Deathly Hollows portion of the plot serve? 4) Why does Rowling completely whiff on Draco Malfoy’s character? She sets him up for some interesting character developments at the end of Half-Blood Prince. In Deathly Hallows, Potter saves him, he’s alreay feeling unsure about Voldemort, and he still tries to join the Death Eaters? More generally, I’m with Russell Arben Fox on this: “I wanted to see Horace Slughorn lay it on the line to the Slytherin students, shut Pansy Parkinson up, and demonstrate (as Phineas Nigellus insisted) that there’s a real reason for Slytherin House after all.” 5) Is it just me or does the final duel between Potter and Voldemort revolve around…. correctly defining the property rights of wands?! 6) This one is the biggest, and touches on Megan Mcardle’s complaint that, “most of [the characters] spend the latter books pointlessly withholding information from each other that, if shared, would end the installment somewhere around page ten.” Let’s see if I have this straight: At the last minute, Harry Potter needs to be told that he has a Horcrux in him and must be willing to die when he faces Voldemort. Following secured, compartmentalized information protocol, Dumbledore entrusts this information to Snape and Snape alone. Dumbledore then has Snape promising to kill him at the right moment — which he does, in front of Harry Potter, who has no idea why this is happening. So, here’s my question — how in the hell was Snape ever going to relay the necessary information to Potter in a way that Potter would have believed him? Harry hates Snape — how could he possible have believed him? Rowling comes up with a way, but surely Dubledore could not have counted on this serendipitous series of events taking place. Even Potter knew to tell Neville about dispatching Nagini before he heads into the woods, because Ron and Hermione might not make it. Why didn’t Dumbledore also tell McGonagall or Mad-Eye this crucial bit of info?
It wasn’t all bad. The scene with Harry walking to his doom, accompanied by all the dead who love him, was particularly affecting. The battle of Hogwarts was friggin’ awesome (one looks forward to seeing that on film). Rowling always knows when to surprise with the humor. And I think I liked the epilogue more than most — Harry and his friends have more than earned their happiness. On the whole, though, Michiko Kakutani is full of it — Dealthly Hallows is a disappointment. For other takes, see Russell Arben Fox, Ross Douthat, and Slate’s Book Club. Rowling provides a few more details about the epilogue here.
Daniel W. Drezner is a professor of international politics at the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University and co-host of the Space the Nation podcast. Twitter: @dandrezner
More from Foreign Policy

Saudi-Iranian Détente Is a Wake-Up Call for America
The peace plan is a big deal—and it’s no accident that China brokered it.

The U.S.-Israel Relationship No Longer Makes Sense
If Israel and its supporters want the country to continue receiving U.S. largesse, they will need to come up with a new narrative.

Putin Is Trapped in the Sunk-Cost Fallacy of War
Moscow is grasping for meaning in a meaningless invasion.

How China’s Saudi-Iran Deal Can Serve U.S. Interests
And why there’s less to Beijing’s diplomatic breakthrough than meets the eye.