"You do not seek to kill me, Dumbledore?" called Voldemort, his scarlet eyes narrowed over the top of the shield. "Above such brutality, are you?"
"We both know there are other ways of destroying a man, Tom." Dumbledore said calmly. "Merely taking your life would not satisfy me, I admit – "
"There is nothing worse than death, Dumbledore!" snarled Voldemort.
"You are quite wrong," said Dumbledore, still closing in upon Voldemort and speaking as lightly as though they were discussing the matter over drinks. Harry felt scared to see him walking along, undefended, shieldless. He wanted to cry out a warning, but his headless guard kept shunting him backward toward the wall, blocking his every attempt to get out from behind it. "Indeed your failure to understand that there are things much worse than death has always been your greatest weakness –"

Another plot problem arises with Harry’s plan to end the extraordinary power of the Elder Wand. Dumbledore apparently became the Wand’s master by defeating its previous possessor, Grindelwald, in a duel. But Grindelwald can’t have been the Wand’s master: He stole it, rather than defeating its master (plus, he should’ve been unbeatable with it). So, unless the Wand chose Grindelwald as its master anyway and Grindelwald fought Dumbledore with some lesser wand for some reason (which is hard to believe), the Wand has at least once chosen a new master after passing out of the hands of an old one without that master being defeated. It can do so again, making Harry’s plan unlikely to work.

I think you've made a mistake on what it means to "defeat" another wizard where the Elder Wand is concerned. In the story of the Deathly Hallows (in the book, not the book by Rowling) the brother who recieved the wand from Death was killed by having his throat slit. Harry "defeated" Malfoy by grabing the wands out of Draco's hand. Hence I don't think defeat is something simple as being defeated in combat.

As for Dumbledore facing Grindelwald, again, the Elder Wand is supposed to be very efficacious when facing death. If Dumbledore dueled Grindelwald without trying to kill him the benefit of the wand might be minimized or even eliminated. This fits in well with Dumbledore's comment to voldemort, IIRC in Order of the Pheonix, that there are worse things than death. To Voldemort death was the worst possible outcome--hence all his horcruxes. This obsession by Voldemort is even more ironic when one stops and considers that is was Harry and his mother's defeat of Voldemort that starts off the series. Even after that, Voldemort still fears death above all else. And also keep in mind Ollivander's comment about wandlore, that it is a complex area in magic and that it is not well understood. In short, there is the "its magic" explanation which renders rational explanations problematic (okay so it is also a bit of a dodge too).

And the "unbeatable" nature of the Elder Wand is probably exaggerated. This point is made when Harry considers pursuing the Deathly Hallows vs. the horcruxes, but rejects that notion and returns to finding and destroying the horcruxes.

As for Harry trusting Snape, I think that was the point of the memories. Snape would have given them to Harry and Harry would have believed them just like the last time he believed Snape's memories. I think that was the plan, that at the end Snape was to find Harry, give him the memories. Granted it was a risky part of the plan, but I don't see how risk could have been entirely eliminated in any plan when dealing with Voldemort.

JEG does make a good point-what is "good" with regards to books and literature is very much in the eye of the beholder. Thomas Hardy is considered "good" literature, but after being subjected to his works twice in various lit classes over the years, I would rather poke needles in my eyes than read anymore voluntarily.

My oldest daughter didn't care at all for the Harry Potter books. That's fine, she enjoys reading other types of books, and that kind of fantasy wasn't her thing. My other daughter and older son have both spent time reading the books, and my daughter has read and reread the series. She also reads Poe, Twain, and spent some time with Roald Dahl.

Whether the series is "great" or not is definitely subjective, but it certainly has themes that have long been a part of fantasy fiction, and can be fun to discuss.

WRTO Voldemort: Just finished David Eddings' Magician's Gambit wherein the villain does himself in through a very stupid mistake. One he has time to heartily regret. :)

WRTO Reader Maturity: Thank you, Christopher. Your childish rejection of the series has persuaded me to pick up the books when I have the money. (I would not complain if the paperback editions were to show up at my apartment door, but be sure to wait until book 7 is out in paperback before you send them my way. :) )

I read the first book back in the long ago. I've read better, I've read worse, but the worst reason for not reading something is because it's "immature". My first criteria is, is it a good read? All else follows from there. I've read one book of the adventures of Captain Underpants. It was silly, it was non-sensical, it was good. The CU books teach you more of the mind of the eight year old than most child psychology books. And they're written for kids and adults to share.

So the HP books aren't "proper literature". At least people are reading them. The important books aren't doing it, why not something socially inconsequential?

Speaking of HPs. The stories of HP Lovecraft are starting to enter literature courses around the world. How long until post grads present their thesis defense concerning the existentialist permutations of "Cthulhu ftaghn"?

You claim to be a well read adult. And, while you may have read some literature that is considered great by the standards of many, I wonder how many well read adults use "lol" when typing. Putting your typing deficiencies aside, however, the fact remains that there is no formula for great novels. And because there isn't a specific recipe for a "classic" or any other kind of recognition a book can receive, it all comes down to opinion. So, while YOU may think Harry Potter sucks, you are in the minority. And though "minority" doesn't always mean "wrong", I know if I started insulting the plot or questioning the validity of "Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory" (which, by the way, is the real name of the book. Not "Charlie and the Chocolate Factory". That's the name of the movie), you would be more than happy to argue and tell me why it's a classic and all that other stuff, but the reason it's a classic is because tons of people liked it. Likewise with Harry Potter, tons of people like it. And you may not be one of them, but that doesn't really matter. So, in 10 years, we'll see what makes the top 20 list, but I'm betting that "Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory" won't make the cut.

As far as "intemperate", well, I guess I am intemperate of HP. And hey, I think the books are great for kids, I guess. But I hope they read good literature, such as Charlie and the Chocolate Factory by Roald Dahl, or Half Magic by Edward Eager or numerous other fantastic books out there.

The fact is, in 10 years HP won't make any noteworthy critic's top 20 list for any kind of category.

In any event, nothing in my post calls HP "great literature." The closest I came was to compare it favourably with the Narnia and Earthsea books. Since I've read them all, I know it to be a fair comparison. Other than that, I called them delightful, engaging, and compelling juveniles which are eminently enjoyable for adults, as well. And, as they are juveniles, I also focused in particular on the moral lessons they're teaching the millions of young people who've read them, a topic I presumed would be of interest to at least some of OTB's readers.

A person truly interested in the literary arts would celebrate HP, even if he didn't particularly care for the genre, for having very likely turned thousands of young people who might not otherwise have been into readers. Your intemperate remarks just mark you out as one of those insufferable prats for whom anything that becomes popular must perforce be bad.

So exactly what qualifies something as "great" literature?

Keeping in mind of course, that a lot of what we currently view as "great" literature was viewed as contemporary fluff when it was published.

There is one great thing about this series though, for all you low intelligence adults that love the book: you can start at the beginning and read it all over again since you probably forgot it all anyway! lol

I think one thing I liked about the last book, is up until the 7th book, Rowling leads the reader and the various characters to believe the Voldemort is very powerful and clever, but in the end his pride in his cleverness is what killed him.

All too often people who end up powerful fail to see their own weaknesses, and Voldemort's pride in himself pretty much killed him.

I think I enjoyed the transformation of Neville from the clumsy and scared boy into the strong young man of the 7th book as much as any other character.