Oh, I agree. The book would have to be substantially re-written without these scenes. And I suspect that is why I am not such a great fan of them in principle (although I greatly enjoy reading them) -- they are an easier way of doing something, which means it would be more impressive if she could have done the same thing while keeping to her pattern. It is all me being grumpy. I just feel that the focalising through Harry is such an ingrained part of the Harry Potter universe, and it is the main excuse for not giving things away to the reader. Therefore, when she breaks the pattern, it is very obviously because she has not managed to hold it.




Yes, but again, the misleading the reader is somewhat cheapened by the plot not being coherent. It is really just down to Aristotle -- a plot not driven by necessity, but by a series of events, is not an optimal plot. I prefer plots to be surprising by very well integrated if plotting is going to be a point (as it is in Harry Potter). But I must stress that I say this based on how I remember this book. It'll be interesting to see if I still think so after reading it closely again.



She does it competently, true. And she has made her own job more difficult in this book, definitely.




Indeed. I tend to do the same. When I was younger I would always root for the villain in superhero films and the like. It is always nice to be able to trace motivation and reactions.