I am probably breaking a rule of blogdom by crossposting this from my other blog, but as long as the internet doesn't explode (or implode) I figure we're safe.
Now, as I said in the subject...there spoilers, lots and lots of spoilers.  If you haven't read (or finished) Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, and don't want to hear spoilers, stop reading.

I have to start with a disclaimer.  There are certain common fictional premises that I have never liked and the Harry Potter books, unfortunately drifted into one, or rather, they drifted into The One.  I know it's a version of the hero's journey, I know it's popular, and I know it has a long mythological history, but I dislike the idea that we helpless masses must wait for some destined hero to solve our problems.  I much prefer the idea that anyone can be a hero and solve their own problems.  So I wasn't pleased when Harry went from boy who lived to boy who will save us all.

Worse, Harry became less and less likable as the books went on, to the point that I really didn't care if he survived the Deathly Hallows.  He bitched and moaned and questioned his friends for the stupidest reasons and clung to the idea that his dead father was perfect even after proof that he wasn't.  Though why that should surprise me when Harry had always been too stubborn to consider anyone else's opinions, I don't know.

In any event, I wasn't the greatest of Harry Potter fans when I sat down to read the Deathly Hallows.  I figured my favorite character, Lupin, would die and I was ready to fling the book away in disgust if Harry was right about Snape - not because I particularly like Snape, but if our arrogant little twit of a hero turned out to have been right from day one about anything, I was going to puke.  He needed a big dose of humility not support for his arrogant inflexibility.

Well, the book was passably entertaining, Lupin died, Harry was wrong about Snape, and the more I thought about the book, the less I liked it.  And the less I liked the series and Rowling's world.

One problem with the series (and one that existed long before this book) is that Rowling never convinced me that Lord Voldemort was The Big Bad.  That he was evil, sure; that he was more evil and, more importantly, more powerful than any other Death Eater, not so much.  So what if he has horcruxes out the wazoo, all that means is that a life sentence to Azkaban would suck that much more for him.  Darth Vader was impressive (and, amazingly, remains so after the prequels), Sauron was not someone you wanted taking over Middle Earth, heck, Ma'ar/Leareth/Falconsbane wasn't someone you wanted as your Velgarthan neighbor, but Lord Voldemort..."He Who Must Not Be Named"...just didn't scare me.  Perhaps it was the ludicrousness of grown men and women referring to a dead bad guy as "He Who Must Not Be Named," perhaps it was that his on-screen (so to speak) villainy was never of a scale, creepiness, or intensity to make him seem like someone the wizarding world couldn't handle.

Another problem with the series is the assumption that muggles are useless.  The muggle prime minister has to be protected by a wizard, even the Dursleys get wizard protection, and good ol' Voldy and his buds spend a bit of time offing muggles just 'cause.  The problem with all this is that knives, guns, bombs, and even baseball bats work on wizards (as long as they don't see you coming - though, with the wizarding worlds lack of technological knowledge, you could probably take care of most Death Eaters with pipe bombs), and spells, like projectile weapons, can be dodged, deflected, or shielded against.  Muggles are useless because Rowling decided they were.  (Now, if the wizarding world didn't enlist muggle help because muggles might have decided the world would be better off if all wizards were in Azkaban, I'd have bought it.)  I'm not fond of fiction deeming that everything has to be left to the master race.

Honestly, Voldy and his cronies are only worse than the rest of the wizarding world because they actively pursue their domination and kill muggles for fun.  The rest of the wizarding world is content to treat muggles like mushrooms and deny them magical assistance, rather in the matter that an advanced nation could withhold modern medicine and technology from a third world country out of superiority.  (Only stranger as the wizarding world could also benefit from technology, so the comparison has to assume that the third world country could afford said modern medicine and technology.)

And don't get me started on the half-raised issues with how wizards treat other magical races.  Who decide to help in the wizard war only because Harry was decent to members of the races (mostly at Hermione's insistence, which makes their viewing him as the decent one really strange).  The good guys may be supporting an order that's better than Voldy's, but that's not saying much.

Oh, and let's not forget that Dumbledore has been keeping Harry alive so that he can sacrifice himself (he's Voldy's seventh, accidental, horcrux).  Yes, the good of the many outweighs the good of the few or the one (though I have some issues with that philosophy, too, but that's for another blog), but is there something wrong with destroying the other horcruxes and sticking Voldy in Azkaban for the rest of Harry's natural life?  Oh, wait, he's The Big Bad.  Yeah.

Yes, yes, defenders of the books tell me that moral ambiguity is one of the themes of the books.  Books in which love is the most powerful force?  Let's just say that naive optimism and realistic cynicism make very strange children.  Never mind that moral ambiguity also doesn't go well with the theme that your choices determine what kind of person you are.  Or the whole side bit with Dumbledore having first agreed with and then helped defeat another bad wizard who tried to seize control "for the greater good."  Oddly, it is this motto that helps Harry steel himself for his sacrifice to Voldy.  Perhaps this is where others get moral ambiguity; I just get a headache.

Then there are the book specific problems, like the fact that the trio (but not Ginny, either because she's under age, because she's a girl, or because Harry luuuves her) wanders England looking for horcruxes, which they neglect to mention to the Order of the Phoenix or any other wizard.  Because three seventeen year olds are so much better than the entire resistance.  Or the fact that Harry, who had hissy fits over the tiniest of slights for books, has no problem with Dumbledore looking out for him because he's a sacrifice.  No betrayal, no distress, just now I know what I must do.  Because suddenly, magically, he's all grown up now.  Character growth is not a switch you flip, Ms Rowling, it's something that you develop and epiphanies need to be shown, not told.  Or the very odd Lupin/Tonks relationship, which happens almost entirely off screen: we're married; ack, she's pregnant, what have I done, it might have my curse; yay, it's a boy, you can be his godfather Harry; and then they're dead.  Nice way to have symmetry, I suppose, but it seems a bit forced.  And why, exactly, was Tonks a metamorphamagus if her powers never advanced the plot?  (And, sure, I'd have liked my favorite character to have lived.  But the sad thing is, Rowling is so bad at doing death that I wasn't even upset he died.)

That reminds me: the theme of the book is don't fear the reaper.  Seriously.  Though the fact that Harry, himself, came back to life somewhat diminishes that message.  (And the how of his non-death is poorly explained.  Either he's still connected to Voldy, which raises questions about how Harry was able to kill him, or Voldy got the horcrux in Harry rather than Harry, which raises questions about why Harry was ever kinda dead.  And doesn't fit well with the fact that destroying the horcrux in all the other objects also destroyed the objects.)

I'm sure my opinion isn't a popular one, but when all was said and done, I wasn't happy with the book or the series.  I much prefer Tolkien's everyone is important and it takes a team of friends (of varying races, powers, and abilities) to save the world.  In fact, one could make an argument that the Lord of the Rings is the antithesis of The One.  Frodo failed.  Sam got him to Mordor and Gollum destroyed the ring.  Arguably, Frodo failed because he did see himself as the one, perhaps not in the capitalized sense, but it was his mission, his burden, his fate.  (And now I've pissed off two fandoms in one review.)