The End of Harry Potter?

I enjoyed the book as a refresher and discussion during the run up to the release of book 7. Now that I've read book 7, this will be very dated, unless you want to see what some speculations were for the end of the series.

While I was in high school, I used Cliff Notes and Monarch Notes as a substitute for reading unsavory literature (i.e. Shakespeare's Julius Caesar in particular). I never understood the purpose of these literary products until I enrolled in college literature classes. The coerced reader can understand symbols and see aspects of literature that would be missed. In fact, Cliff and Monarch Notes enable the coerced reader to be transformed into an engaged reader. THE END OF HARRY POTTER? accomplishes the identical tasks as Cliff and Monarch Notes. One BIG difference; no one is coerced to read Harry Potter. After reading Langford's work, I see important aspects of the series that I missed or didn't get. After I read DEATHLY HOLLOWS, I probably will reread the series. Langford will be responsible for that. One aspect of THE ORDER OF THE PHOENIX I missed was the linkage of Rowling's life and the symbolism of Umbridge's actions. As a single parent living in poverty, Rowling was confronted with well-meaning but overly bureaucratic social workers. Umbridge's character emerged from Rowling's experience with social workers. An extremely important and eye-opening article that Langford cites is Benjamin Barton's article entitled 'Harry Potter and the Half-Crazed Bureaucracy' in THE MICHIGAN LAW REVIEW volume 104, May 2006. I teach a course in community organization and will require my students read Barton's work. The contents will help social work students understand the impact of their actions on clients' capacity to succeed. I can make two points that will help a person decide whether to read THE END OF HARRY POTTER?. First, if you read this review after the publication of THE DEATHLY HOLLOWS, you're too late. The central theme within Langford's book is connections within the first six novels that lead to the last. Thus, THE END OF HARRY POTTER? will not be enjoyable if THE DEATHLY HOLLOWS is read first. Second, the Rowling's purpose is reminiscent of Roddenberry's. The original STAR TREK was intended to be a morality play made palpable to the general public. The Harry Potter series achieves the identical objective. The easier route in life is succumbing to evil. Harry (or Rowling) shows that the long term consequences of taking the moral path is a self actualizing experience that is more satisfying than any short term pleasure. Langford is a master of the written word and THE END OF HARRY POTTER? is worthy to read.

I've been reading quite of few Harry Potter Guides in anticipation of the upcoming 7th and final book in the Harry Potter Series. I wanted to share my thoughts in order to assist those that might also be looking for books to read. I have mixed feelings on reviewing this book. It is not what I expected. With a title like "The End of Harry Potter? An Unauthorized Guide to the Mysteries that Remain", I expected the book to, well, speculate on the mysteries that remained. Oddly enough, it didn't really postulate a lot of theories on how the book/series was going to end. Since this was the primary purpose for buying the book I was, at first, a little dismayed. But as I continued to read the book, I came to like it more and more. The absence of unbrideded speculaiton was actually a bit of a mercy. Some of these books create massive theories that are nothing but a house of cards. Remove one card and the entire structure tumbles. It annoys me when these several authors go off on these flights of fancy. While these various theories could occur, the chances of them actually occuring are miniscule. I want to see facts and logical inferences - not wild guesswork. I think author David Langford didn't project as much as I had anticipated because, in truth, almost anything is possible in book 7. Despite writing six preceeding books, Rowlling has done an amazing job of keeping her options open. There is simply a lot of stuff we don't know and that we can't reasonably anticipate until we read the 7th book. Langford follows the clues down their varios paths, then moves on without feeling the need to add unsubstantiated guesswork. The nice thing about this is that it primes us for the upcoming book - gives us the threads to pick up when we identify them in book 7. As I've said. I bought the book primarily to help me solve some of the upcoming mysteries. I don't think the book did that, yet I still highly reccomend it. It was well written. It flowed and was a good read. It was intelligent and thoughtful. I think the nicest thing I can say about the book is that it will make the reading of book 7 more enjoyable. I don't want to give the book a 5 star rating because it wasnt' "super de duperdy" great. But it earned a very, very solid 4 stars. I can't imagine anyone who is pondering the mysteries that the 7th Harry Potter Book may contain not enjoying this book.

My goodness, this is certainly embarrassing! I'm the first one to review this book, and I'm a spry young lad of 40. Isn't this supposed to be for fanboys and fangirls? (Whatever those are...) It should be obvious that I'm getting my geek on. With Book 7 coming out in less than three months, and having reread all the books, I found myself craving something "Potter". I don't care much for discussion forums because an awful lot of ridiculous theories get mixed in with intelligent discussion, so I thought this would be fun. It was. The author, David Langford, is a 27-time Hugo Award winner. Those are impressive credentials. He's a very bright, funny guy, and knows the Potterverse well enough to be a more than able guide. Some theories I'd seen, others I'd thought of, but he did manage, more than once, to slip something in that took me by surprise. For example, when discussing Dumbledore's trust of Snape, he opined that perhaps Dumbledore does NOT trust Snape in the way we think he does. He discusses Rowling's ability to fool us in depth, like a magician waving a rabbit in front of our faces but convincing us that we can't see it. She's a master at that. What other kind of trust might Dumbledore have? He might trust that Severus Snape will do exactly as he expects him to, play the part Dumbledore wants for him, and go back to Voldemort's side. So, when he says that he trusts Severus completely, he's saying that he trusts him to be untrustworthy. I'm not sure that I believe that, but it was a new thought, a very valid one, and made me sit up and pay more attention. If you're tired of discussion forums, this is a terrific place to turn.