ŷ������

That's manipulation for ya, dude.

"Well, obviously we want to turn it into a huge, bloated, ridiculously self-important seven-volume series."

Nope, not really. She planned it all from the beginning, even before the publication and success of Philosopher's Stone.

She planned it all from the beginning, even before the publication and success of Philosopher's Stone.

I know a lot of people say this, but I've never seen a good piece of evidence to support the theory. If it were true, I'd expect to be able to look at passages in the early books and say, oh yes, of course, he was really talking about the Horcruxes, the Deathly Hallows, etc, but I didn't realize that at the time. Now it all makes sense.

Can you point me to some of these passages? If they exist, I assume there must be whole pages of them on the Web, with elaborate commentary. I'm a little surprised I haven't seen them, but I freely admit that I'm no expert on Harry Potter.

For a moment I couldn't believe what I was reading, but anyway...

"but I freely admit that I'm no expert on Harry Potter."

- In the first chapter of the first book, we hear Sirius Black's name, a character that doesn't enter the series until the end of the third book.

- We hear that Hagrid had been expelled from the school as early as he enters (in the second chapter with him), and it isn't until the end of the second book where his expulsion acts as a part of explaining the plot.

- Trelawney makes her prediction about Voldemort's come back, and Dumbledore [wittingly] says that he should rise her pay cause she had made TWO correct prediction up until now. Two. Of course most readers -including me - must have missed that part as it is not given much of an importance. But in the end of book five, in the chapter "The Lost Prophecy", when Dumbledore discusses with Harry about the Prophecy, he tells Harry about the main prophecy that Trelawney made years ago, leading to the death of James and Lily.

- The Slytherin's locket, which was the Horcrux, they first found it in book five. It was told that they wanted to open it and couldn't. It wasn't until the end of HBP that we learn of the thing called Horcrux, and much after they visit Grimmauld Place for the last time (in the books) that they figure out that that was the actual Horcrux.

- Tom Riddle's diary that later we - along with Dumbledore and Harry - come to realize is a Horcrux. So yes, Rowling did plan out the whole Horcrux thingy from the beginning. The fact that it was an interactive diary that could think and work as an individual, shows us that it was much more than a Diary.

- Snape mentions about Bezoar in the first book, the first time they met. He says that the stone will help you to fight most diseases. Later, Harry remembers this and saves Ron from his death by remembering about the Bezoar. It also hints us about the Prince's identity.

- There are so, so many things mentioned very casually in the first books that later proves to be an interesting plot element for the latter books. Remember the vanishing cabinet that Draco uses in Half Blood Prince? That was first mentioned in Chamber of Secrets.

- Oh yeah, Hagrid's obsession with Giants and monstrous creatures, later explained by his own nature: he was a half-giant, and that he had a giant for a brother.

That's all that I can remember at the top of my head. There are so many more foreshadowing in the whole series. If you reread, you will find more.


Moreover, Rowling said that she was planning SEVEN books as early as the publication of the first two books. I will try to dig those out if I can.
Check this:

And btw, why did she stop at book seven, if the only reason why she wrote the latter book was to, er, y'know, to just earn money? Why did she not write an eight, ninth (which she said repeatedly that she can, but it's very unlikely, because the story is over)? Oh yeah right. Because she had it all planned out during 1990-1995.

Bookworm, it's funny how people view things in different ways. I've read the whole series, and I did notice many of the connections you point out (not all of them), but none of them seemed at all compelling to me. To me, it was more that she introduced something and then she found a clever way to use it in a later book.

The core question, as far as I'm concerned, is still the same. Where's the smoking gun that proves she'd already thought of the Horcruxes and the Deathly Hallows when she wrote the first book? None of the points you name seem to fit the bill.

"Where's the smoking gun that proves she'd already thought of the Horcruxes"

Huh? Read point # 4 and 5. The whole of Chamber of Secrets is dedicated to foreshadow the Horcrux subplot. Same goes for the 'locket scene' that she introduced in one of the chapters in Order of the Phoenix (which, initially, came off as an unnecessary paragraph, but later I got to see its significance in the series).
As far as Deathly Hallows, I will readily admit that yes, there had been some last minute additions to the series, too, and the Hallows are most likely going to fall there. I will also concede that the concluding 1/3 of Deathly Hallows was mostly not satisfying. However, book 1-5 is plotted extremely well, with "trivial" things coming in the earlier books becoming more important plot elements in the latter books.

"but none of them seemed at all compelling to me."

Suit yourself. :) It's unimaginable to me how one can NOT see the 'little things' that she connected over the span of the seven books, but then, I guess we all are different and view things differently. As someone who had read the books so many times over and over again, I can swear that even before I got the internet and started to know about Rowling, I assumed that all the books must have been planned from the beginning. Her foreshadowing is so strong to me that, now that I reread the series, it seems obvious where the story was going.

Look, you obviously know far more about HP than I do, but I still don't see that you've answered my question. You tell me to look at points #4 and #5. I agree you can make a case for Tom Riddle's diary suggesting that she'd already thought of the Horcruxes, though I think it's a lot to claim it's a smoking gun. On the other hand, it doesn't matter, since, unless I am much mistaken, the diary first turns up in book 2.

What strong evidence is there in the FIRST book to show she'd already planned out the series? Is there any?

"Look, you obviously know far more about HP than I do"

I have read the series a number of times, but I don't consider myself to be an expert. If I am mistaken, then let me know.

"though I think it's a lot to claim it's a smoking gun."

You asked me to give evidence in my favor. I did so. Now if you wish to disagree, feel free to. If you wish to claim otherwise, then the burden should lie on your shoulder to prove your points, and not the other way around.

"What strong evidence is there in the FIRST book to show she'd already planned out the series? Is there any?"

*Sighs*...look at point #1 and 2. I am not going to repeat myself unless you want me to clarify something that you haven't understood from my post or I haven't been able to express properly.

Oh wait - I just remembered another one (how could I have missed listing this on my second post? :p): Remember the second chapter of the first book? The vanishing glass? Where Harry *talks* with a Snake with disastrous consequence? Of course it just seemed talking with Snakes maybe ordinary to wizards or the likes, but in book two we get to know that Harry is also a Parseltongue - something he inherited (if that is the correct word to use) from Voldemort, when Voldemort tried to kill Harry as a baby (Dumbledore explains this in "The Prince's Tale", saying that when a fragment of Voldemort's soul was blasted apart, it launched itself on to the only living that was near, and this part of Voldemort's soul is what gives him the power to speak with Snakes among other things). Now you could still argue that she "cleverly used them in the latter books" (I am not saying you would, but in case you do, let me say this that), which is definitely a probability, and considering the amount of times she manages to wrap her stories and weave it together in a way that feels as though everything had been planned from the beginning, I'd say that

If you reread the series another time, probably more carefully (after all, I strongly believe that while reading Harry Potter is as easy as possible, understanding it in depth isn't), you'd see that little, trivial things that are often thrown around in the early books - as though they were as insignificant as possible - later comes as important plot elements in the latter books.

Btw you seemed to have missed a question I asked you: "And btw, why did she stop at book seven, if the only reason why she wrote the latter book was to, er, y'know, to just earn money? Why did she not write an eight, ninth (which she said repeatedly that she can, but it's very unlikely, because the story is over)?"

look at point #1 and 2. I am not going to repeat myself unless you want me to clarify something that you haven't understood from my post or I haven't been able to express properly.

Ah, come on. You aren't seriously saying that mentioning Sirius Black's name, or the fact that Hagrid had been expelled from the school, can prove anything? And ditto talking to the Snake. I am indeed going to say that she could have just adapted this stuff to the later books.

I think your evidence of an overall plan becomes increasingly convincing as the series develops. She certainly had a plan in place well before the end, though you also seem to agree that there were many additions, in particular the Deathly Hallows. Personally, I felt it was just wrong for the cloak of invisibility to be explained this way, and that it was only with considerable goodwill that one could accept the new account.

My personal feeling, which I freely admit isn't based on a close knowledge of HP, is that she didn't have a plan for the later books when she wrote book 1. It would have been incredibly presumptuous to do that before she even knew she could get one published, and she doesn't come across as that kind of person. But when Philosopher's Stone became a hit, she cleverly put together an extended story which led on from it. It's possible she did it as early as book 2.

you seemed to have missed a question I asked you: "And btw, why did she stop at book seven, if the only reason why she wrote the latter book was to, er, y'know, to just earn money?

Well, I agree that NOW the story is over, and it would be ridiculous to continue it!

So I agree with you on many points. But I still don't see any clear evidence that she had already planned the series when she wrote the first book. That's all :)

Even diehard fans have put together sporks proving that the seventh, and probably the sixth, weren't planned. There are too many plotholes. JKR doesn't even read the books before she sets out to write a new one. She says that she relies on the Lexicon for info. And this is a woman with the forthought to plan a seven book series?

Tolkien admitted that he hadn't planned LoTR when he wrote the Hobbit. It shows. And he was honest. CS Lewis didn't write The Magicians Nephew until he was done with The Last Battle. He didn't claim to have it written before. Both of them were meticulous worldbuilders who didn't rely on an outside source to store info about their stories.

Now, since she's using the Hero's Journey, I guess you could say that she kind of plotted out the books using a preformed plot structure. But it's obvious from DH and even HBP that those are two shoddily put together addons from collected bits in the series.

Now, JKR is smart. She knows how to leave a lot of bits left around to put together her story incase she writes herself into a corner. But just because she has a locket lying around doesn't mean she planned to use it later. We could say the same thing about all the references to Harry's socks. Hey, in B1 Dumbledore says he wishes he had socks when he looks in the mirror. And Dobby makes Harry's socks! And Harry always complains about his grubby yellow socks. They must be the socks of Hufflepuff! But they weren't, despite the countless mentions they get all over the series. Just because she leaves a gun lying around, it doesn't mean she intended to fire it. It's more likely that she left a bunch of guns around to fight out of plot hole corner when she'd written herself to exhaustion.

Just because she leaves a gun lying around, it doesn't mean she intended to fire it. It's more likely that she left a bunch of guns around to fight out of plot hole corner when she'd written herself to exhaustion.

That's beautifully put. I have a feeling I'm going to quote you.

Manny wrote: "Just because she leaves a gun lying around, it doesn't mean she intended to fire it. It's more likely that she left a bunch of guns around to fight out of plot hole corner when she'd written hersel..."

Thank you. And go right ahead. I like HP, but I have no patience for flaws or plot holes.

Just because someone plans something doesn't mean they can't or won't deviate from the plan.

Though it's very obvious she didn't plan the Deathly Hallows.

"You aren't seriously saying that"

Yes I am seriously saying that. Mentioning Sirius's name does prove that she had the whole Marauder's subplot in her head before even getting into book three. Mentioning Hagrid's expulsion, even before going into his story (that we come to see in book 2, 3, 5 among others) does prove that she had that in store, too. As for the snake - I really don't see why she'd put that for no apparent reason. If ANY wizard could talk to Snake, then that would be a different reason (one could then argue that she put that in to distinguish Harry from the Muggles). But as we see in the first book, literally NO mention had been made about any other wizards having the ability to speak with Snakes. So why did Jo put that in if not to foreshadow Harry's ability to speak with Snakes, something others (most of them anyway) didn't have?

"I think your evidence of an overall plan becomes increasingly convincing as the series develops."

Wait - did you say "convincing"?

"though you also seem to agree that there were many additions"

Yes I never denied that, and I would freely admit that there had been some (even many, especially in Deathly Hallows) additions that she literally had to put in to make her plots work. But that does NOT mean that she simply wrote the latter books based on the phenomenal success of the earlier books, without any plotting or planning whatsoever.

"Well, I agree that NOW the story is over, and it would be ridiculous to continue it!"

But that does not answer why she chose to close the story on the seventh book instead of stretching and extending it more? After all, considering the phenomenon these books created, she could have easily extended the life of the series by "adding some more" (as you imply she has done with ALL the books after the first one). As it is, despite fans all over the world asking her to write more books on the Harry Potter series, she had said it over and over again that, while she isn't going to say a final 'no' (as the future is uncertain), it's highly unlikely that she would do so.

Also, it's ridiculous to assume that the series would have been finished just after book one. For heaven's sake! Harry or his pals didn't even conquer Voldemort and Dumbledore explicitly said that Voldemort is going to return. Do you expect her to leave a book - a CHILDREN'S book at that - hanging like that?

In Oprah's show, she mentioned that, while she knew that getting it published is going to be incredibly difficult, once it is published, she had that confidence in her that it would be huge.

"But I still don't see any clear evidence that she had already planned the series when she wrote the first book."

Yeah, I guess Sirius's name was mentioned for nothing. Harry talked with a Snake for no apparent reason. All the hints, clues, foreshadowing she used in her books were done for no reason at all.

What would be "clear evidence" for you, I wonder? What sort of evidence do you want, actually? As it is, I hope you realize that I can't make you use a Time Turner and make you go 21 years back and lend you an invisibility cloak which would help you follow Rowling's life from then onwards, and see for yourself whether she planned it or not. I think can post some links to interviews where she discusses the series, but I am sure those will be dismissed as "that's not hard-core evidence either". So what type of evidence you really need to make it clear?

Yes I am seriously saying that. Mentioning Sirius's name does prove that she had the whole Marauder's subplot in her head before even getting into book three. Mentioning Hagrid's expulsion, even before going into his story (that we come to see in book 2, 3, 5 among others) does prove that she had that in store, too.

Well, it sounds like Cory might be better placed to answer your points, but I liked her general argument. For example, as she suggests, compare with The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings. You could argue that there is explicit foreshadowing in the earlier book (like, Bilbo finds the Ring!) but Tolkien says he hadn't planned the later one. Do you really think the stuff in HP 1 is stronger than that?

“Even diehard fans have put together sporks proving that the seventh, and probably the sixth, weren't planned.��

I don’t think anyone would argue that literally EVERYTHING from A to Z was planned from before (well, maybe baring some obnoxious fanatics who read, eat think and drink Harry Potter day and night, but then, every group has its extremists). After all, if she had had everything in store, then why would she take two-three years to “write�� and publish the latter books? As far as I understand, the basic plot structure, character development, themes etc were planned from the beginning. And then she took her time to “flesh it out�� and write them. For some books, her strategy worked well. For some books, it didn’t. To say she sixth and seventh were not planned AT ALL would be tough to believe on my part considering that, as much plot holes and inconsistencies they do have, they still have the sense of continuity (for most part, at least), and the fact that a lot of elements from the earlier books come to play an important role here.

“JKR doesn't even read the books before she sets out to write a new one.��

Can you source it? I am aware that she took helps from Lexicon to do her researches, but I have not heard of her not reading her own works before getting on to the latter books.

“But it's obvious from DH and even HBP that those are two shoddily put together addons from collected bits in the series.��

Not in my opinion. Yes the inconsistencies showed, yes, it was obvious (again IMO) that certain parts were added, but there still was a sense of continuity for the most part. If she literally ‘made�� everything as she went, then I am sure the books would have completely fell flat.

“But just because she has a locket lying around doesn't mean she planned to use it later.��

What was the purpose of the locket, then, I wonder? To assume that she simply threw it in because she could use it later in her next books is just that �� an assumption. She might have, she might not have. That the locket comes off as an important plot point later speaks in her favor.

“We could say the same thing about all the references to Harry's socks…But they weren't, despite the countless mentions they get all over the series.��

The socks were used to symbolize a lot of things, including but not limited to love (Mrs. Weasley), freedom (Dobby), etc. I think this essay from Lexicon puts it in a better way:

I would argue that the Invisibility Cloak being a Deathly Hallow is just about fatally continuity-breaking.

Manny wrote: "Yes I am seriously saying that. Mentioning Sirius's name does prove that she had the whole Marauder's subplot in her head before even getting into book three. Mentioning Hagrid's expulsion, even be..."

Well, I am not very knowledgable about Tolkien, so it will be better on my part to not discuss things that I know little about - i.e. Tolkien, The Hobbit, etc.

However, to clarify my point: I did not mean that everything from A to Z was planned. I meant that the basic plot, characterization, character development (how and from when the characters will start maturing, how they will change, etc), themes etc were planned from beforehand. Obviously if she had written everything in store then she wouldn't need years to publish each installment. Rowling always said that she had planned things from beforehand, but did she ever say that she never added or deleted or modified things later on?

So, you're arguing that her plot and characterization were planned from the beginning? Hmm... seeing as how the entire HP series is basically the Hero's Journey with wands, you'd be correct. There's originality here and there, but when you're writing epic fantasy for children, there are only two or three outcomes. She built up a fantastic world and couldn't figure out how to close it. That happens when you don't have control over your worldbuilding and you're unable to tie up your loose ends. Did you like DH?

I really don't have time to refute you point by point or search for her interviews (which are very inconsistent). She can't even keep track of her character's ages. She says she's bad at math, which is crucial when you've got a story that takes place over 100+ years. So why should I believe that she can plot out a seven book series? You have your opinion, I have mine. HP is good, but it's not godsend and I have no reason to believe she had the ending in her head until I see the mounds of diaries, research, etc... that proves it.

Of course you can change, add, or modify things, but with a series like HP, a series that could fall apart very easily, you don't change much, otherwise, your world falls apart.

She made the locket important. She could have easily made Ms. Norris important, or the items in Hagrid's pocket. A chekov's gun is useless if you never fire it. Why do think there are so many essay writers like Redhen? Because JKR loves leaving around redherrings that never amount to anything. They've got ample material to speculate about because everything has equal importance until she says otherwise. Read the passage in book#5 where the locket is mentioned. Then look at all the other items that she mentions in the same paragraph. The snuffbox, etc...

Like Manny said, find proof of the Deathly Hallows in B1. Why wouldn't she allude to them in a way that satisfied all of her fans? After all, she leaves around a million red herrings. Why aren't there any in books 1-4. Even Stephanie Meyer has proof that Breaking Dawn was written before she was published. Writers are like that. They have the ending planned out way before they ever get published. Ask any writer and they'll tell you they have three or four books planned out in their series if the series is indeed intended to be more than one book.

By the way, Slytherin is male, correct? So why does he have a locket? I was always curious about that as water is usually a feminine element.

“So, you're arguing that her plot and characterization were planned from the beginning?��

The basics, yes. She obviously “fleshed them out�� as the series progressed, as well as added, cut-out and modified things.

“There's originality here and there��

I wasn’t aware that we were talking about originality here? I’d like to have a discussion about that, but I’m not sure why you mentioned that here.

“Did you like DH?��

Yes, at least at the time of my initial reading (keep it in mind that I read the series in one go). However, now that I reread it and analyze it deep down, I can see that the book is significantly flawed. The first 300 or so pages were excellently written (the camping scenes being some of my favorites from the entire series), but the book went downhill after that. Too much of dues-ex-machina usages, things were too contrived, and the concluding 1/3 was not satisfying at all (and not to mention that epilogue, which came off as something straight from fairytales). There were some good bits in there, though �� like ‘The Forest Again�� chapter, Dobby’s death, etc. But as a whole, I’d rank the book much lower if I rank it objectively.

“I really don't have time to refute you point by point or search for her interviews��

Oh well! What can I do now but bow down to your “evidences��. Unless you can support your stance by evidences, logical arguments, etc, I can’t take what you say seriously either.

“She can't even keep track of her character's ages.��

Has she messed up the ages of her major characters (not counting the likes of Nearly Headless Nick)?

“So why should I believe that she can plot out a seven book series?��

No one asked you to believe anything, really. I only asked you why you think so, and reading the above, it seems you are reluctant to share, or simply that...

“HP is good, but it's not godsend��

Nor do I know of anyone who claims so (baring a number of obnoxious fanatics, which, as I pointed out previously, isn’t really unique to Harry Potter), and this has no relevance to what we were discussing here or what you just mentioned after that.

“and I have no reason to believe she had the ending in her head until I see the mounds of diaries, research, etc... that proves it.��

Well, “researches, diaries, documents�� etc all can be made-up, so I guess that won’t count as “evidences�� either. As it is, I don’t think it is possible to derive concrete evidences out of what occured over 20 years back. Forensic scientists consider themselves lucky if they find evidences of things that happened some hours ago.

“Because JKR loves leaving around redherrings that never amount to anything.��

A mystery writer must always leave a large amount of clues and whatnot lying around �� easily to confuse the readers. Had she only focused on one object (or person), then it would have become too obvious for the readers to guess the correct outcome.

“Like Manny said, find proof of the Deathly Hallows in B1.��

In case you haven’t read the full conversation �� which seems to be the case �� I have already conceded that there seems to be some “last minute additions��, too �� and the Hallows are most likely going to fall under that. I never said literally everything from A to Z was planned from the beginning (if that were the case, why should she take so much time to write the latter books?), but to say that literally nothing was planned and yet so many puzzles come to fit together in the end is a little absurd, IMO.

“After all, she leaves around a million red herrings.��

The way I see it, leaving red-herrings is a clever trick that mystery writers among others use to deviate the reader’s attention from the actual object to a false one, so that they are surprised later on. The more skillfully one can do so, the better he or she is at his or her job.

“Why aren't there any in books 1-4.��

There aren’t any?! Yep, I guess the mention of Sirius Black, Harry talking with a Snake, Hagrid’s expulsion, the Interactive Diary, Dumbledore mentioning TWO of Trelawney’s prediction even though we have only seen one…yeah, I guess she simply put them for nothing, and later somehow (magically I guess) translated into great plot elements out of the blues.

If writing a series was that easy, where you write one and base off the others on that without any pre-planning, I’d say there would be many Rowlings. As it is, there aren't.

"So why does he have a locket?"

I never knew that wearing locket is unique to girls.

Is Sirius a Hallow? Is Scabbers a Hallow? Hmm... no. So what do they have to do with the ending of HP?

Unless I'm mistaken, they aren't horcruxes either. The horcruxes might have been planned. Or, at least they were planned from book 6. The Hallows, no. Find a single mention of a Hallow in books 1-4. After all, JKR is a master red herring planter, correct? You'll find none.

Elder wand? Zero mentions. Not even a hint. The big duel depends on this, no?

Resurrection stone? None.

The Cloak. Please. The rules were bent for that cloak a million times. So Draco can stun Harry through it and Moody can see through it, but Death made it? Right.

The entire plot depends on the Hallows. After all, Voldemort spends the entire book looking for them. But JKR leaves not a single mention of them when the ending rests on them. That doesn't sound like a pre-planned ending to me. The horcruxes might have a leg or two to stand on. But the hallows? No. Something that important should be acknowledged by book four. At least by book six. That is why I say that JKR did not plan out the series before hand. That's like Luke finding out that Darth Vader is his father five minutes before the Sith attacks him. Or Frodo finding out that Gollum will do anything to get the ring when they're right on the crack of Mt. Doom. Those plots depend entirely on little clues left by Tolkien/Lucas. The books would've fallen apart without them. If they popped up out of nowhere, it would've indicated that they hadn't plotted out the series. Like JKR. The writers of Avatar: The Last Airbender had a similar dilemma. Fans make excuses for the fuck ups, but that doesn't change the fact that they wrote a crappy unplanned ending chock full of Deus Ex Machinas and plot holes. Like DH. Given the title, you think you'd have the Hallows figured out from book 1, right?

Don't forget that there's two Cloaks. The Crouch family has one in Goblet of Fire. And it's very clearly just like Harry's.

Beth wrote: "Don't forget that there's two Cloaks. The Crouch family has one in Goblet of Fire. And it's very clearly just like Harry's."

Yup. Let's not forget that.

And, if you've got a lot of time on your hands, here's a link detailing the shit JKR made up for the DH:

She did a lot of asspulls for the ending. Asspull:

“Is Sirius a Hallow? Is Scabbers a Hallow? Hmm... no. So what do they have to do with the ending of HP?��

Aren’t you reading what others had been saying here over and over again? I swear I have to post this the every other minute! Here it is, to quote myself:

“As far as Deathly Hallows, I will readily admit that yes, there had been some last minute additions to the series, too, and the Hallows are most likely going to fall there. I will also concede that the concluding 1/3 of Deathly Hallows was mostly not satisfying. However, book 1-5 is plotted extremely well, with "trivial" things coming in the earlier books becoming more important plot elements in the latter books.��

“In case you haven’t read the full conversation �� which seems to be the case �� I have already conceded that there seems to be some “last minute additions��, too �� and the Hallows are most likely going to fall under that. I never said literally everything from A to Z was planned from the beginning (if that were the case, why should she take so much time to write the latter books?), but to say that literally nothing was planned and yet so many puzzles come to fit together in the end is a little absurd, IMO.��

I don’t think I can get any clearer than that. The fact that the Hallows had been added in the end doesn’t mean literally NOTHING had been preplanned. The ‘Hallows�� is one aspect of the plot of a particular book, not everything the series is about. However, I must add that I find it amusing how you conveniently ignore the rest of my post(s), don’t bother to support your stance by evidence (after all, by your own admission, you don’t have enough time on your hands), bring up the same issues over and over again that had been exhausted to death, and then assume you can go on with your debating. Sorry, bud, if I spent my time and energy behind a post, I’d like the other side to show the same respect.

Given that we have exhausted the whole Hallows issue, I am not going to go there again. If you can bring anything new to the table, I will reply. Or else, I am most likely going to call it a day and end it here.

Cheers,
Bookworm ;)

Bookworm, why don't you read The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings, and then we can resume this conversation? Cory's right: it's a good comparison point. Also, they're truly excellent books.

I really don't know what you're talking about, Bookworm. You asked why I didn't think she planned out the ending, and I gave you reasons. Though I suggest you study other fantasy novels. JRR Tolkiens's work, like Manny said, is a good starting point. Also, The Chronicles of Narnia. Anything by Ursula LeGuin. And Dianne Wynn Jones. Martin, Zelazny, Gaiman. HP is what I'd call the gateway into fantasy.

And yes, we have exhausted the Hallows issue. They're kind of the entire 7th book. If they weren't planned, the series wasn't planned. Something that important cannot be a last minute addition. That's the mark of a lazy writer. Why are you so set on defending JKR? She did what Stephen King did with The Stand, another book I recommend you read. Once it got too bloated, she didn't know how to end it. So she brought out her Deus Ex Machinas and killed off some characters. Stephen King admitted that he had no idea how to end The Stand and it shows. If it feels like I'm repeating myself, that's because you aren't listening.

Can you explain why something so important is only an element of the plot? Dobby helping Harry escape Malfoy Manor is an element of the plot. Hermione being tortured by Bellatrix is an element of the plot. Take out the Hallows and, like I said, it's equivalent to Tolkien forgetting about Gollum. Or JKR herself not mentioning that Quirrel wore a turban until he removed it from his head. Or not mentioning the mirror, which had the potential to be a huge Deus Ex Machina, but, because she foreshadowed it, it worked out. She knew she'd need it later because the entire book hinges on it.

That makes her either a very bad writer when it comes to the DH, or someone too egotistical to admit that she made a mistake. Since she's very capable of foreshadowing, I'd bet that it's the former rather than the latter.

Though, may I ask why you're getting so annoyed and irritated? It's just a book that wasn't planned. It doesn't take away from the other books. It just means she didn't plan the ending.

I would suggest you guys to read the HP series again. Because if Voldy did not have a horcrux, he would have died on the day he tried to kill Harry. Didn't he die when the same curse rebounded again in Hp7, since all his other souls were dead. Also Voldy says that he took measures to make sure he cannot die, when he gets his body back in HP4. And what came out of the diary was much more than a memory. A memory cannot try to kill Ginny and restore Voldy's power, can it?
Comparing the series with LoTR and Hobbit makes sense, only if JKR wrote Hp7 and then wrote HP1, which is not the case here. All the loose ends are tied at the end.
And somebody mentioned about the cloak that Crouch had. It has been mentioned in the book that many such cloaks were in existence, by putting Disillusionment charm on them, which usually wears off with time. But in case of the cloak that Harry had, no such thing happened with time.
And how do you explain Dumbledore having Harry's father's cloak with him?
I am sure all the millions of fans out there are not fools :)

...

Just because millions of people like a book, that doesn't mean it's good. Millions of people like every popular book: The Bible, Mein Kampf, Twilight, HP, LoTR. That doesn't make them good, nor does it prove whatever point you're trying to make. I really wish people would stop telling me to re-read HP. I've read all of the books more than three times. It's not that deep. Explain the hallows and their existence because you've only proved that the cloak is not a hallow. Give me proof of the hallows existence before HP7. Until then (-_-)

BTW, The Hobbit was written before LoTR and in continuity, it comes first. That's why it's valid. HP1, like TH, was written before HP7.

Do you read critically or do you take everything Rowling gives you with a teaspoon of sugar? Telling someone that they need to read a book again is equivalent to telling them that they read the book wrong. And I'm really tempted to tell you to fuck off. But I won't. Don't insult my intelligence again if you wish to have a civil discussion on this series. Also, your points make zero sense. They don't prove that she'd had the hallows outlines in the 90's. They only shakily "prove" that she'd had a concept of the horcruxes.

So wait...she adds, in book seven, the crap about disillusionment charms and suddenly that means she planned it?

Bull. If that was the case, Hermione would have learned about it. She learns about everything, but somehow that passed her notice? I doubt it.

Fans are fans. They don't always see what's in front of their noses when they love something. But plenty of them still see these problems.

"and I gave you reasons."

You said “JKR doesn't even read the books before she sets out to write a new one��. I asked you to support your point by posting a valid, reliable source. You refused to do so (here is what you said, to quote you word by word: “I really don't have time to refute you point by point or search for her interviews��). What you say may be true, but unless you can support your stance (especially considering how strongly you claimed that), I can’t take you seriously.

“If they weren't planned, the series wasn't planned.��

The seventh book is part of the series, not the ENTIRE series. One aspect of one book not being planned doesn't mean literally nothing had been preplanned.

“Why are you so set on defending JKR?��

Have you seen me defend Rowling’s lazy writings in the last 1/3 of Deathly Hallows? Have you seen me defend her numerous plot holes in her texts? Have you seen me calling Rowling a messenger of God? Have you seen me saying Harry Potter is flawless? No, right? I am defending on things which I honestly believe to be true. Just as you are defending your stance (which you consider to be true), I am defending mine. I have no qualms with the way you interpret her works.
If I can be accused of being defensive, I think the table can be turned around, and you can be accused of being ‘nitpicky��, too. Of course I wouldn’t want anyone to label you that because, for the most part, you have been pretty civil and logical in your approach. Despite my disagreements with your points, I can see your side and where you are coming from. I am not going to go on debating if one can’t show me the same respect.

“that's because you aren't listening.��

That’s a poor way of constructing a debate. If you feel someone is not listening, by all means point out how it is so.

“it's equivalent to Tolkien forgetting about Gollum��

You have to understand that Lord of the Rings was ONE book published separately. Harry Potter, on the other hand, was seven different books. Tolkien can’t have forgotten Gollum because Gollum is part of the main plot of the (one) book (read Lord of the Rings). The Hallows, on the other hand, was part of the main plot of the A SPECIFIC book of a seven book series. She explained the Hallows midways in the book, not at the end.

"It's just a book that wasn't planned. It doesn't take away from the other books."

Pretty much what I had been saying from the beginning - i.e. the ending of Deathly Hallows wasn't entirely planned, but that doesn't mean literally nothing of the series was planned, as implied by Manny.

“It just means she didn't plan the ending.��

Not planning the ending =/= (doesn’t equate to) not planning anything at all. That is the only thing I had been trying to convey since the beginning of the discussion. I grow tired of repeating, but if you have bothered reading the whole discussion, you would have known I had been saying this repeatedly from the beginning that the concluding 1/3 of Deathly Hallows was not at all satisfying, but rather felt too disjointed, as though she brought things out of thin air to make her plots work. The Hallows too seem likely to be created at the eleventh minute. I think Rowling herself said it in various interviews that she wasn’t sure whether to kill off Harry or not �� meaning that the actual ending wasn’t planned. However, the fact that the ending wasn’t planned doesn't equate to NOTHING being planned at all, as Manny is implying.

I can’t ignore the enormous amount of evidences, foreshadowing, clues, hints etc that I find while rereading her earlier books when it is staring right at my face. I go tired of saying this over and over again: why did Dumbledore at the end of Philosopher’s Stone say that Voldemort is going to return?, why did the first book had no resolute conclusion?, why was Snape’s past �� which Rowling very cleverly foreshadowed in the earlier books �� revealed only a little, but not completely, why was Sirius Black’s name mentioned for no apparent reason?, why did Dumbledore refuse to answer Harry’s question about Voldemort not being able to kill him as a baby and why weren't we answered about why Harry wasn't killed off as a baby when Voldemort was one of the most powerful wizrds ever when literally NOTHING had been preplanned from the beginning? But given how horribly I had exhausted this thread and my energy repeating that, I am not going to go there again. Reread my earlier posts, and if you find them ambiguous, then, by all means, ask me to clarify myself, and I would happily do so.

***

“Telling someone that they need to read a book again��

…is no worse than accusing someone of “you aren't listening��.

“And I'm really tempted to tell you to fuck off. But I won't.��

Now who's "getting so annoyed and irritated", I wonder?

Just because millions of people like a book, it does not mean it has to be good. But since so many people like it, it has to have something good in it. It can't be some meaningless book. One of the Hallows was always present from book one. Just because the term 'Hallows' wasn't introduced in the first book, it doesn't mean she might not have planned them. You may have read it 3 times, but I have read them at least 20 times and watched the movies some 30 times or so and I still feel there is enough depth to read them again.

Bookworm, you really should read the Tolkien books. The more I think about them, the more I like Cory's comparison here.

Looking at The Hobbit, it's so easy to make a case that Tolkien had already planned the whole series. Bilbo finds the magic ring which is the very core of the story in The Lord of the Rings. Gandalf, who turns out to be possibly the most important character in the whole series, already has a substantial part here. We meet Elrond, who's also important for the later book. We see elves, dwarves and orcs.

And it's not like there are no connections: Tolkien had worked out most of the back-story, which later came out as The Silmarillion. He used that back-story as scaffolding when he wrote The Lord of the Rings too. Yet, as Cory says, he honestly admitted that he hadn't planned The Lord of the Rings when he wrote The Hobbit.

As I said, I find it hard to believe that Rowling had planned the whole series before she wrote the first book. If she had, then why couldn't she have left an unambiguous clue? It would have been the easiest thing in the world for e.g. Dumbledore to say "Horcrux" or "Deathly Hallows" in some context where it was completely impossible to guess what they meant, leaving a tantalizing mystery which would have been satisfyingly resolved later. But she didn't. Why not?

One can argue that even though Aragorn is one of the most imp characters in LOTR, there is no mention of him in The Hobbit :)

Fans are fans. They don't always see what's in front of their noses when they love something. But plenty of them still see these problems.


Another poor way of constructing a debate. If "fans are fans", then the same can be said for the detractors: "detractors are and will be detractors", meaning they would continue criticizing it just for the sake of it.

Of course I wouldn't accuse ALL detractors of criticizing a work for baseless reasons. I know some do so because they honestly feel that aspect of the work deserves criticisms. Similarly, fans aren't always defensive just because they are fans. It could be because they honestly do believe in their side. I could be a fan but I can easily criticize my favorites (and have done so numerous times in this very thread) without feeling guilty.

Manny,

"Bookworm, you really should read the Tolkien books."

Thanks for the suggestion, Manny. But you have to understand that I have over 50 books in my 'to-read list' (not just the one in goodreads), and at this moment, Tolkien is at the bottom of my priority. I will get to his works once I am done with the others.

"Dumbledore to say "Horcrux" or "Deathly Hallows" in some context where it was completely impossible to guess what they meant, leaving a tantalizing mystery which would have been satisfyingly resolved later. But she didn't. Why not?"

"Hors" is a French word for "dehors" (meaning out), while "crux" means essence/spirit, "Horcrux" together meaning a device of putting and keeping your soul outside your body. Do you hoenstly expect her to give such an obvious clue in her earlier books? Fans and critics already speculated about Voldemort having part of his soul split and that living inside Harry's body, even before the publication of Half Blood Prince where we finally read about the Horcrux thingy. Do you expect her to be even clearer that would spoil all the fun?

The fact that Voldemort doesn't (or couldn't) die when he tried to kill Harry (the question being why...), that Harry can speak Parseltongue - something Voldemort can, too, and something that is so uncommon even in the Wizarding world, that Harry has a strange connection to Voldemort's mind that nobody seems to be able to explain, that Ginny made friend with an interactive diary that asks her to open the Chamber of Secrets, etc all points out to the Horcrux subplot. Had she used to word "Horcrux", it wouldn't have remained a 'mystery' whatsoever.

As for the Hallows...way to beat a dead horse back...sighs...I think it has been agreed upon by nearly everyone that they were most likely to be "last minute additions". Can one be any clearer than that? But just because the Hallows weren't entirely planned, doesn't mean literally nothing had been planned whatsoever. And why only focus on the Hallows (is it simply because they are one of the few things that is easy to criticize about the Potterverse)? There are other aspects of the series where Rowling tied everything well in the end.

Bookworm, if you look at my shelf you'll see that I've read rather more than 100 books in French. Once you know what a Horcrux is, you can make up a story about why the word means what it does. But, in my humble opinion, you'd have to be astonishingly smart to figure it out from the name alone. "Crux" is just not a normal French word for "soul" or "spirit". Even if it were, "hors crux" would mean something like "outside of one's spirit" rather than "external spirit". French doesn't form compound nouns in the same way as English. So I remain deeply unconvinced by your argument.

If you've got 50 books ahead of Lord of the Rings on your to-read list, then you've clearly found some damn fine books. Enjoy! :)

Manny wrote: "As I said, I find it hard to believe that Rowling had planned the whole series before she wrote the first book. If she had, then why couldn't she have left an unambiguous clue? It would have been the easiest thing in the world for e.g. Dumbledore to say "Horcrux" or "Deathly Hallows" in some context where it was completely impossible to guess what they meant, leaving a tantalizing mystery which would have been satisfyingly resolved later. But she didn't. Why not?"

Probably because The Hallows weren't preplanned. Just like Bookworm keeps telling you.

Sorry to barge in on the discussion, but honestly, are you listening to what Bookworm's saying at all? Because from an outsiders viewpoint, you keep asking the same questions over and over again, and she's already answered them.

Don't try to make her out to be a troll or mindless fan who wants to defend her hero no matter what. It's already glaringly obvious that she is neither of those things.

Bookworm wrote: "Fans are fans. They don't always see what's in front of their noses when they love something. But plenty of them still see these problems.


Another poor way of constructing a debate. If "fans ..."

You really aren't listening. No one has said that Rowling planned nothing. I have not seen that said here at all. We have simply pointed out what we feel was not planned.

Somehow "We don't believe J.K. Rowling planned all this" is translating to you as "J.K. Rowling is a ninny-ninny dumb dumb poopy-head who made it allllllllll up as she went along." I repeat: No one has said that.

All anyone is asking for is satisfactory evidence, which obviously Cory and Manny do not feel you've presented. They *gasp!* don't agree with you. That's not the same as not listening.

You're really starting to get on my nerves. If you're going to argue a point, don't be disingenuous and try to change what people actually said.

I NEVER said all fans are incapable of seeing flaws in what they love. I said:

Fans are fans. They don't always see what's in front of their noses when they love something. But plenty of them still see these problems.

And yet, you completely ignored what I actually said here. Sometimes, we--that goes for all of us--cannot see the flaws in things we love. Other times we acknowledge those flaws despite how much we love something.

Now, you could acknowledge the point I was in fact arguing:

I am sure all the millions of fans out there are not fools :)

But I guess that would mean you couldn't stomp around here insisting we aren't listening to you and criticizing how we frame our arguments. And you would have to be honest about what was said, which you seem incapable of doing.

Newsflash: Acting like someone said something they did not isn't a good way of constructing a debate. You want to have a discussion? Don't. Put. Words. In. My. Mouth.

Sofia, I have read all Bookworm's posts. The problem is that she claims she's answered my points, but I don't agree she has. And I'm not alone in thinking that: Cory, who clearly knows the series much better than I do and moreover seems to have a reasonable grasp of literary theory, has the same opinion, but even more strongly. And Beth also seems to agree.

I asked a simple question: what clear proof is there in book 1 that the series had already been planned, and in particular that the Horcruxes and Deathly Hallows had been thought out at that stage? Bookworm has mentioned a few things which, to me and the other skeptics in the audience, seem at best suggestive. This is just not what people usually mean when they say "clear proof".

This discussion does underline one issue for me. It's not healthy to read the same book over and over again, to the exclusion of everything else. In the end, you're too close. You lose sight of it and find it hard to see things objectively. Read some more fantasy, compare HP with it, and you'll get a better perspective on these things.

What I don't get is why pre-planned or not is so important to Manny's review. Personally I think she jotted down a complete outline, but left herself open. But I really don't think this is of such overwhelming importance to get panties twisted!

Manny - I ended up loving HP but also agree that 1st is disappointing if you are reading it after the last decade+ of extravagant hoopla. THe first book was a bit juvenile in the tone and not much really surprised me but it was fun. It was perfect me for me at the time - I was running a fever, had nothing else in the house. #2 is also fun, but again in that juvenile way. I say she learned how to write as she went along, the books become more complex and the writing matures.

It's certainly no epic like LOTR, lacks the profound sadness of a writer seeing a world lost (WW2), there's so much of the best nostalgia - in the deepest meaning of the word, a human pining for lost innocence, the vision of Tolkien is lacking, the sheer depth and capture of spirit. But I don't feel a need to compare the 2 at all. Completely different. HP is simplistic compared to LOTR - love is all there is. But that's OK!

I think when there's a discussion like this people can become bogged down in a narrow direction - at least that's how I see it coming to this for the first time!

Because really is it that big of a deal that 2 people disagree? Is this pre-planning or lack of it that important?

Is this pre-planning or lack of it that important?

Well, you know what it's like. I spent about three minutes writing this review, Bookworm challenged it, and I felt I had to defend my views for what they were worth.

I don't really like Harry Potter very much... I guess it's a good story, but I just find her style very unappealing. If I enjoyed the writing more, I'm sure I wouldn't try and pick holes in the plot!

“No one has said that Rowling planned nothing. I have not seen that said here at all.��

Hypocrisy in action!

This very statement, right here, goes on to prove that you are the one who haven’t been listening. Manny said it �� a number of times actually �� that he doesn’t believe the series was planned at all, and that Rowling wrote (and planned) the rest of the series after the success of philosopher’s Stone.

Here, let me quote him word-by-word:

“My personal feeling, which I freely admit isn't based on a close knowledge of HP, is that she didn't have a plan for the later books when she wrote book 1. It would have been incredibly presumptuous to do that before she even knew she could get one published, and she doesn't come across as that kind of person. But when Philosopher's Stone became a hit, she cleverly put together an extended story which led on from it. It's possible she did it as early as book 2.��

(The 9th post in this thread �� go check it yourself).

Here's another:

"As I said, I find it hard to believe that Rowling had planned the whole series before she wrote the first book."

So now, who “really aren't listening��? Practice what you preach, especially when you don’t want others “putting words into your mouth��.

“You're really starting to get on my nerves.��

Your problem, bud. You can always put me on your ignore list or talk to a moderator or simply report my post �� if those options are available here, that is. I haven’t said anything that is outright dishonest or offensive. The way you are coming across, you aren’t showing yourself to be capable of having a rational and cohesive discussion either.

"I NEVER said all fans are incapable of seeing flaws in what they love."

And anyone here accused you of that...?

“If you're going to argue a point, don't be disingenuous and try to change what people actually said.��

In case you have missed it, I don’t have the power to change how other people write or post their comments. I have quoted Manny word-to-word, without changing it in any way.

“I am sure all the millions of fans out there are not fools :)��

Huh? I didn’t say that, and I would never do so either. I don’t even agree with that statement. Stop misquoting me, or intentionally trying to deviate the spirit of this argument into a totally irrelevant tangent for no apparent reason other than to rile up the members who are not on your side.

“Newsflash: Acting like someone said something they did not isn't a good way of constructing a debate.��

Oh my, thanks for this wonderful advice. But hun, practice what you preach first before you spout out again. Because, frankly, literally every accusations you are throwing at me (with your rather distasteful and juvenile manner) can be thrown right back at you, too. Apparently, you honestly aren’t listening worth a damn �� if you were, you would have known Manny did imply that the series wasn’t preplanned, and that she sketched out the other books after the publication (and success) of the first installment. You aren’t listening when I repeatedly asserted that many aspects �� like the Deathly Hallows �� doesn’t seem like planned. You can’t have a civil conversation whatsoever without putting down members who aren’t clinging to your side. And yet you go right ahead, accuse others of “not listening��, “getting into my nerve��, “putting words into my mouth��, “fans being fans�� without for once looking at your own attitude and activities.

Bookworm, I stand by what I said. Especially the bit about how you ought to read Tolkien and other fantasy authors, so that we can draw some comparisons and have a more interesting discussion.

I keep telling you, The Hobbit is really good! You'll love it.

Thanks guys, this is really entertaining. Kudos to Bookworm for making a phenomenal last stand and going down fighting. Now, let's see if it was for a worthy cause...

“Sofia, I have read all Bookworm's posts.��

I could have believed this statement, if only you did not contradict yourself right after that when you said: “what clear proof is there in book 1 that the series had already been planned, and in particular that the Horcruxes and Deathly Hallows had been thought out at that stage��.

For the love of God. How many times do I need to point out that I MYSELF BELIEVE THAT THE HALLOWS INTRODUCED IN THE LAST BOOK WAS MOST LIKELY NOT PLANNED FROM THE START? There. I can’t get any clearer than that.

Need I quote myself AGAIN? I guess so.

Here is what I said, not once or twice, but numerous times in this very thread:

“As far as Deathly Hallows, I will readily admit that yes, there had been some last minute additions to the series, too, and the Hallows are most likely going to fall there.��

“I have already conceded that there seems to be some “last minute additions��, too �� and the Hallows are most likely going to fall under that��

Honestly, can someone point out what’s so incomprehensible in that? And why would I try to prove a point that I never claimed to be true?

*Edited out the LoTR references*

“The problem is that she claims she's answered my points, but I don't agree she has.��

First things first �� I’m a “he��, not “she��. Secondly, I DID answer your question. Whether you find my answer believable and logical is up to you, of course. But to say I haven’t answered would be dishonest at the very least.

“And I'm not alone in thinking that��

Strength in number doesn’t equate to making a valid point.
If more people were on my side, and they would have been telling exactly what I had been doing so far �� would you call my POV valid then? Of course not.

“This discussion does underline one issue for me. It's not healthy to read the same book over and over again, to the exclusion of everything else. In the end, you're too close. You lose sight of it and find it hard to see things objectively. Read some more fantasy, compare HP with it, and you'll get a better perspective on these things.��

What brought you to the conclusion that someone here is reading the same book over and over again, excluding everything else from there lives?
My or anyone’s reading habit is none of your concern, and I will be ever so glad if you can stay away from it. ;) Someone’s inability to reason, listen attentively and grasp a simple point that has been stressed more than that is necessary makes me want to advise him, too, about how to view things “objectively�� without letting your negative bias take hold of you �� but I won’t and can’t stoop that low.

With that said, I am probably honestly done with this thread this time, unless provoked �� and if that be the case, I am not going to remain silent. What started out, or at least had the potential to be a meaningful discussion, slowly grew into a tiresome, repetitive one, whose main outcome was to indirectly mock the ones who agrees with and conforms to Rowling’s views, and trying to insinuate that the ones “defending�� or “supporting�� Harry Potter are lunatic fanatics with no lives of their own except for trolling virtual boards day and night or sticking their nose deep inside the pages of the Potter books.

I am not going to go inside the Horcrux theory, again. If you don’t find my answers logical or reasonable, that’s fine. You don’t have to see it my way. But you can’t say I haven’t been answering your questions when I am putting so much effort and spending so much of my time and energy constructing these posts �� just for the purpose of answering “your question��. Yes there aren’t any concrete evidences of Rowling foreshadowing the Horcruxes. But frankly, there can’t be one without leading the readers know full well about the plots and subplots of the latter books. I repeat, do you know forensic scientists consider themselves lucky if they can find “concrete evidences�� of things that happened just a few hour ago? Finding “concrete evidence�� is just that difficult. So sorry, I can’t pull out concrete evidences of things that were planned over 15 years ago.

However, there are more than enough evidences in her texts that lead me to believe she had Horcrux planned from the beginning. Though I don’t like repeating myself to exhaustion, I think I will do so, again: Why couldn’t Voldemort kill off Harry when he tried? How did Harry survive? Why did Voldemort got scrapped off from all his powers and might? Why did Dumbledore repeatedly say Voldemort is alive, contrary to popular belief? Why did Dumbledore repeatedly stress that Voldemort is alive in some form, and that he is going to return some time, when everyone else thought he is dead? What was the reason behind Harry’s ability to speak Parseltongue �� something Voldemort could do, too? What is the reason and explanation behind the connection of Harry and Volemort’s mind? Why did Voldemort, when he returned to full force, say that, he was less than a ghost, less than any mortal can be, and yet alive? How did the diary have led Ginny to open the Chamber? But wait…these are all “half-baked��, “nonsensical��, “devoid of any logical basis�� blah blah evidences…so why am I even wasting my time?

You say why she never put the word ‘Horcrux�� in her earlier books? Well, how would putting that change your view, I wonder? Unless she would explain her whole plot (ruining the suspense for us suspense lovers), I am certain you would STILL argue that her usage of the word “Horcrux�� was done for other reasons that has very little to do with the actual plot, that she was trying to throw red-herrings and make readers confuse etc. Like Sirius Black’s name being mentioned does go on to prove she had the Marauder’s subplot in her head, long before writing the third book, and yet, you ignore that, as usual. So really, would ANYTHING ever convince you actually? I am not convinced it would. Sorry if I am coming off as harsh with you. You have been pretty civil here, even if you missed out what I said several times, so I don’t think I should take that tone with you, but I hope you realize how frustratingly dull and tiresome repeating the same thing can be.

At the end of the day, we are looking at the same thing from different sides. You have your opinion, I have mine. If I haven’t been able to convince you, then neither have you been able to convince me with your viewpoint. In fact, by rule, you should be the one bringing evidences in your favor. Remember that, you were the one who claimed that this series was initially not planned, and that Rowling wrote the latter books after the success of her first installment. You said that in this thread, and hinted at that in your original review. If this was a court of law, the burden then would have been in your shoulder to prove your point, not the other way around. The one making the claim is under the burden to prove his point, not the other way around. Apparently, the “best�� evidence you have shown us here is repeat the same question about the Hallows.

Before I take my leave:

“Probably because The Hallows weren't preplanned. Just like Bookworm keeps telling you.

Sorry to barge in on the discussion, but honestly, are you listening to what Bookworm's saying at all? Because from an outsiders viewpoint, you keep asking the same questions over and over again, and she's already answered them.

Don't try to make her out to be a troll or mindless fan who wants to defend her hero no matter what. It's already glaringly obvious that she is neither of those things.��

Thanks, not just for defending my position here, but actually taking the time to view what has been going on in this thread. As an outsider, I think you are in a better position to judge that. It’s unimaginable how many times I need to stress that the I DO BELIEVE the Hallows to be “last minute additions��, and then get accused of “not listening�� �� as if others are listening very attentively, which is why they keep on missing out crucial things being said, not just once but repeatedly. And it seems like you can’t defend an aspect of someone or something without being labeled a “little fan troll�� �� if not directly, then by indirect insinuations.

Strength in number doesn’t equate to making a valid point.
If more people were on my side, and they would have been telling exactly what I had been doing so far �� would you call my POV valid then? Of course not.

Bookworm, all I'm saying is that this is not a situation where you have clear proof of anything. You argue that there is foreshadowing of the Horcruxes in the first book, but I don't find your arguments compelling. I mention that other people, who know the series well, agree with me, just to show that it's a situation where opinions are divided. I don't say these other people prove you're wrong. They just strengthen my case that you're not clearly right. You have an opinion, not a proof.

Manny's destroyed you abundantly in this discussion, you're offering nothing new to the table whilst you expect Manny to continually bring more to an argument that you haven't probably refuted. I think you should just let go if you have nothing to add but your opinions.

You're obviously getting angry because you've being proven wrong about a book series that you seem to love. You must understand that this series was written for kids and that if it has plot-holes and the like, that it is perfectly okay. Once you accept this, you'll be able to just let it go.

I have to totally agree with Manny on this thread. Whenever someone sits down to write a book I think a lot of ideas a brought about in the mind. Once the world becomes too big for a book ideas expand and grow. It really does feel like that is what happened with this book. There are a number of things from earlier books that were drawn from but I think it formed itself as it went along in some ways too. Its a creative process and likely a bit of both. Some ideas Rowling may have had running around in her head for a long time and finally found a way to put it cohesively together. There is no reason to say that a book is good or bad for the lack of or inclusion of pre planning but pre planning is NOT a requisite for this series in my opinion. There are a handful of possible plot set ups for later books but a good number of the key points of the series I think lack this. I am reading some of George R.R. Martin right now (keep in mind fantasy is not my favorite genre in general) but I think without a doubt Martin can hands down be called a master of plot, and he blows Mrs. Rowlings ideas of plot "contrivances" out of the water. I am not a hundred percent fan of Martin and I think there are some problems with some of his books. But Plot? Flawless and very well planned, very well thought out and intricate as heck. Rowling cannot touch that. She just can't. I liked the books myself. I think they were fun, and I would have loved them as a young girl I am sure. But pre planning as you have termed it has somewhat of a creative bent in this case.

Joining this a little late but...yay Bookworm. You tell them!

It is very obvious that she had planned 7 books-one year for each year Harry has at Hogwarts-from the very beginning. I certainly don't have the energy to argue it as well as you did, but I'm glad you stood your ground with sound argument.

The Hobbit wasn't planned but it seemed like it could have been. Therefore Harry Potter wasn't planned even though it seemed like it was. Your detective skills seem to be lacking.

Haters gonna hate. People like to talk shit about popular things. It makes them feel smart and cool.

BTW, you can go ahead and tell me to fuck off, if you're tempted, Cory. :-)

At the end of the day, Bookworm's arguments are stronger than yours. I don't believe there is any evidence you will accept to prove that she planned it in advance, so this whole argument is useless. If she had mentioned Horcruxes, you probably would have dismissed that, too.

Tippy, there's any number of pieces of evidence that would convince me. I don't see anything unambiguous here, that couldn't equally well be explained as making it up as she went along.

No offence, but you haven't mentioned anything new here, just your opinions.