Lilith, that is exactly what left me a little let down with this installment. The last few books have been building in intensity and scope steadily, and while certainly important in terms of Harry's character development and intense because of the Big Death, I felt a little deflated after reading it. I guess I was expecting more.


WARNING: SPOILER ALERT!


As far as the "hole in the plot," as I said, it's not a huge one. It can be easily explained away, but both my brother and I felt it should have been addressed in the book. Harry briefly considers that the Half Blood Prince is his father, but when he looks at the inside front cover, the book is 50 years old (or so), making it too old to have been his father's, and putting James out of the running for the title of Prince. However, the true HBP, did indeed go to school at the same time as James. Sure, you could argue that Snape bought the book used, hence the publication date, but when its age was used to rule out the elder Potter as a contender, then it seems a bit unreasonable to ask the reader to suddenly forget that the book was supposedly published long before the Snape attended Hogwats without a bit of explanation.

~Lady A, who will be waiting impatiently for the next book

*spoiler!*

I assumed it was Snape's mother's book (Eileen Prince, I think her name was). Now that you mention it, though, that's never addressed.

Same here. Which would also explain why the writing, as I recall, looked more "female" and wasn't recognized by Harry as even remotely familiar -- because surely Harry had seen Snape's writing at some point.



Edited By scarlettdraelynkhar on 1123167475

SPOILERS!!

I was also a bit puzzled by the 50 year old book. As I've only read book 6 once and without stopping (meaning in my sleepy state I probably missed a fair few relevations towards the end) I mentioned it to my friend who is a devoted Potter fan. She instantly replied that Snape inherited the book from his mother. Either we all missed a little snippet that explained that, or more likely, J.K.Rowling explained that fact in an interview. Maybe she took that for granted and expected us to put two-and-two together.

scarlettdraelynkhar, I'm almost certain that the writing was also described as narrow and cramped together, the same as it was in book 5 when teenage Snape was writing his essay. If I'm right, then Harry was a bit dense not to recognise the writing. But let's remember Sirius' death- Harry's always been a bit dense when it comes to remembering things that are essentially vital. So, Snape's mother never wrote in her book- Snape scribbled all over it when the book was passed on to him.

blckencht- I love that theory. It's just not like Dumbledore to plead. Besides, now that he's gone, there's no one standing between Harry and Voldemort. His parents are gone, Sirius is gone, Dumbledore is gone. Harry's desire to kill Voldemort is now stronger than ever. I think Dumbledore knew he had to die for Harry to kill Voldemort. Unfortunately, my dear devoted friend told me that J.K. Rowling has told interviewers that Snape is in no way innocent, causing me to wail in despair for ten minutes. However, could I find any proof of her saying this? Nope. Besides, everything J.K. Rowling 'reveals' is in fact some twist of what will actually happen. J.K. did say in repsonse to the question "is Snape in any way innocent?": "what do YOU think?" with a laugh. Ever since the beginning she's been trying to fend off those of us who don't believe Snape's such a bad guy after all. I'm convinced there's some twist hiding there. After all, the Unbreakable Vow should be a big part of the next book.