Okay, straight away, HP is a commercial success. No doubt about it. JK is rolling in it.

But having just watched the last movie (is it the last?) and no doubt helped JKR purchase another solid gold bidet for her castle, I am left wondering, what was it all about?

Usual plot: goodie meets baddie, kills baddie, happily ever after etc.

Along the way goodie undergoes soul-hardening trials of wizarding lore and teenage angst, to the backdrop of a darkening storm of badness.

I feel this could have been done in three volumes at most, with interweaving of stories. For example, the horcruxes could have made a much sooner entry, and featured as a backdrop even at the beginning. The deathly hallows could have been cut altogether for all they achieved. The devices of the trials for the goblet of fire were all very well, but the usual weakness ensued: I call it the 'oh get on and kill him, you moron!' weakness.

At many points, HP could have avadra'd big V. But apparently according to modern literature, this isn't the done thing as it makes him as bad. But so could Voldemort have got Harry. Missed opportunities abound.

When the death eaters mangled up the bridge in London, my interest picked up. Now these naughty people were doing some serious damage, magic was running amock. But again, nothing was really made of it.

What the last two doorstop books boiled down to was a treasure hunt and a denoument that was so delayed as to prompt the question; is V really dead? Or waiting to return when JKR has spent all that cash?

Or perhaps I should read the books for the hidden subtleties?

As I said at the outset, commercial success, indeniable. But a literary landmark? my website

I have read the books, but have not noticed these undercurrents you seem to have seen.
What I did notice though was a change in the way she wrote when it became clear that HP was going to be a screen epic. The writing became more cinematic. my website

Not seen the final film yet, but the part one was one of the worst cinema experiences of my life - awful. I don't feel any of the films really worked and agree about the bridge sequence. Why?

I did enjoy the books including the last one, but then success did free JK from a need to edit. I often look at this writing and the hoops that we are supposed to leap through and wonder who suggests the "rules". I'd rather have RK's success than a book devoid of -ly words.

Final comment - any film with Helena Bonham-Carter in full crazed slut mode is worth seeing.

ET

Is that why your avatar looks a little glum?
Don't get me wrong - great concept, (note the number of imitations!) and you can get the measure of the plot from the films without reading the books. But all those words...were they really necessary? Put another way, if HP had been a minor success, would we still have hernia-inducing final volumes? Or did JKR write up to her success? Or as suggested, was above editting?

Provoke...provoke... my website

Films are very rarely as good as the books, and these are no exception. The books can be wordy at times, but I love the way each book builds on the one before; they're so closely integrated it's almost one novel in seven parts.