(Original post by Star7)
Just putting out my thoughts here
About Snape: that's basically it, but there was a lot of stuff going on behind it; remember the trio and everyone else believe Snape killed Dumbledore for no other reason than to allow Voldemort full reign over the wizarding world. Obviously if he tried talking to the trio they probably wouldn't have let him talk since they hate him (he also caused George to lose his ear, albeit accidentally), though he could probably cast a Patronus to make them listen. When he was giving Harry his thoughts he was dying and obviously thinking about Lily during his last moments so inadvertently gave those memories to Harry as well as the Harry-is-a-horcrux memory. It did explain everything really about why he was protecting Harry and working for both Voldemort and Dumbledore and why exactly Dumbledore trusted him so much, confirming Snape's status as a "good guy".
There aren't many double acts cut in half. Malfoy and Goyle would have died if it weren't for Harry, and he probably could have saved Crabbe if he saw him when escaping the Room of Hidden Things. Both deaths are very different and happened for very different reasons and had different impacts on the reader. I never noticed the tendency of cutting double acts in halves. I felt angry and sad when Fred died, and relieved when Crabbe died (come on, he was just a creepy psycho).
Like one poster said earlier, this was purely intentional. Harry needed to talk to make us and Voldemort understand. Dumbledore said that even without his horcruxes, Voldemort's magical skill would still surpass Harry's. The whole point was to show just how powerful the magic of love is, how Voldemort can never be powerful enough because he underestimates the greatest power there is, and it is a recurring idea throughout the book and therefore neat for JKR to return to it. It also highlights Voldemort's ruthlessness in needing to kill to possess the Elder Wand, rather than just disarm. I thought the speech was more powerful than just having yet another duel
which wouldn't have worked anyway because the wand would not want to have attacked its master.
The same thing would have happened but there would be no proper explanation. And Harry also gave Voldemort the chance to redeem himself by feeling some remorse for what he did, which is incredible and shows again how Harry's a very unusual wizard.
By that logic, Cedric got killed; why wasn't he resurrected? Dumbledore died, why wasn't he resurrected?
You can't bring back someone from the dead, this is such an important theme in the books. Harry doesn't even have the power to resurrect anyone from the dead. Also, if I remember correctly, Moody's body couldn't be found, given that his eye was in Umbridge's door. Voldemort managed to be resurrected but then again, he wasn't really dead.
Harry? When he was writing Dobby's headstone he felt that Hermione would have done a better job. I doubt he's artistically inclined, or would have had the time, or that Dean would have obliged, or that anyone at the age of 17 had that kind of power. There is obviously some deeper magic behind just painting portraits of dead people, probably following the logic behind why some people come back as ghosts - because they leave behind an imprint. It needs to be intentional. It was important for Harry to understand the meaning of death. The conversation he has with Nick at the end of Book 5 is really interesting.
Also, was that a typo? Why on earth would Harry even want
to talk to Voldemort after his death?
It's so much more complicated than that. Imagine just how terrified Ron and Hermione would have been (we don't see their point of views) so they're bound to get closer when they're living in such close quarters 24/7. Also, you're forgetting how Ron left Harry and Hermione, and how cold Hermione was towards Ron when he finally returned. Ron and Hermione had their fair share of arguments as well - see the third book when they didn't speak for weeks, or the sixth book with all that Lavender stuff going on.
And I thought it was touching when Harry described Hermione like his sister. I think JKR herself said how Harry nominated Ron and Hermione as his family. The relationships between the trio is so important and there's nothing convenient about it. If it weren't for the troll in Book 1 (or Quirrell/Voldemort for that matter) then there would probably be no Hermione. She's more than just a love interest for Ron, and more than just an encyclopaedia.
Because, like someone said earlier, he was a werewolf. He was probably seduced by the idea of having a normal life (as normal as possible during a war) by having his own family, and he didn't really have anyone, what with James and Sirius being dead. They got married, had a kid, and he regretted it because he was terrified the kid might be like him. If you read what he says to the trio in DH it is so heartbreaking, really.
They are pretty similar, but JKR hasn't denied her being influenced by Tolkien when writing the books. But again, I think there's too much generalisation. In essence, they are pretty similar, but they are inherently different in their natures. The Ring wants to get back to its master, it betrays people, and leaves people by itself. The locket, however, is just a locket with a bit of Voldemort's soul inside, it doesn't possess them or affect their minds to the extent that the Ring does. It only brings out what the trio are already thinking anyway, even subconsciously. Ron sums it up pretty well before he destroys the locket, in saying how the horcrux made everything much worse, and how it was stuff he was thinking already. The Ring is more manipulative and makes people do and think things they ordinarily wouldn't under normal circumstances. And the Ring only got heavier the closer Frodo was to Mount Doom and the stronger Sauron was growing. The locket was heavy to begin with.
It just shows how everything and everyone gets involved when it really matters. To be honest, I don't remember Buckbeak and the Thestrals getting involved in the final battle, I might be wrong. I only remember Buckbeak at the end of Book 6, but I suspect Hagrid may have been involved.
Dumbledore didn't come back as a ghost, an echo remained to enable him to communicate with Snape as a portrait. He still needed to instruct Snape on helping out the trio and protecting Hogwarts and his role as a double-agent. It wasn't guidance. And I think that's a bit of a tenuous comparison, given that Dumbledore could not avoid his death, what with the curse and Malfoy's orders and Snape's Unbreakable Vow.
I have to admit, I can't fully expand on the comparisons you've raised between Star Wars and Harry Potter since it's been years since I last saw a Star Wars film.
I'm not saying the series is without faults, but there is no way in writing a fantasy without having some similarities with other fantasies. There are certain tropes that make a book a fantasy, and JKR chooses the ones to use very carefully. If you look at the HP series as a whole and on its own, it is a very neatly written series (as a whole, I'm not going into a debate about her writing style) in having recurring themes about love and death and things like the Chosen One and the prophecy (I did like JKR's approach in having the prophecy as being something of a choice, rather than pre-determining actions and negating free will). Nothing jumps out at you. Even the horcrux thing was planned from the very first book. It might be impossible to write a fantasy series without there being any similarities at all with other fantasies. That's far too much to expect from any author.
Apologies for the huge post
I've been thinking about this for a while and I hope it makes some sense