Originally Posted by The Prankster
Well, for starters, I wouldn't have moved the action of the final book away from Hogwarts, which is a huge part of the appeal of the series. And I wouldn't have made it into a "plot coupon" story, which is a boring fantasy cliche and which moves the focus of the story far away from the characters and onto boring "video game" narrative stuff.
I honestly think the final book is flawed at a fundamental level, and I'm not a huge fan of HP in the first place, so it's hard to come up with a quick fix. But I find it hard to believe Rowling couldn't have hit the crucial plot points with a story that kept things at Hogwarts and didn't move most of the supporting cast offstage for 90% of the book.
I almost couldn't read the rest of your main point since it started with this statement and I'm having difficult taking anything else you say seriously because of it, but I'll do my best.
Yes, the last book breaks the mold, but again, it fits the story. It's about becoming an adult. What's the perfect symbol for that then leaving school behind? It's about learning outside of school, learning things on your own, depending on your friends and family to help you become a grown-up. Besides Hogwarts literally being corrupted, I don't know what a stronger metaphor you'd need to get that. But maybe it's not sophisticated enough for you. Not like Buffy the Vampire Slayer, I suppose.
Much like the "pages and pages of camping," not having the final at Hogwarts is absolutely essential and I can't understand how anyone could see it differently. It's fitting that the battle takes place at Hogwarts because that's what everyone is fighting for. It's a symbol of these young men and wives futures and everything that could represent. But like everything else, Harry has to feel like he's at risk of losing it. Above that, he rejects it because it's become something he can't believe in anymore. That shows incredible growth and maturity in the character, themes and the writing.
I suppose you could come back and tell me that I'm just "insisting that it's so" and that I "don't have an argument." But it's right up there, and if you act like I'm stomping my feet and insisting that "Rowling says its important, therefore it is," you'll continue to come off like a condescending jackass on the internet. So feel free, but don't expect me to take your "it's boring" augment seriously either, especially when you freely admit to not having an idea of how to improve it while simultaneously dissing the entire series.
I don't know. I didn't have a problem with the camping stuff. It's not as if it were pages and pages of Ron, Harry and Hermoine roasting marshmallows and telling stories. It doesn't even feel like that. A lot happens in that section. Their friendships are tested. They feel hopeless. And there are lots of huge reveals. Anyone with the lack of insight to just brush it off as "Harry Potter and the Infinite Camping" would be the type of person to suffer a serious lack of imagination.
As for your boring Horcrux complaint: originally, I thought that was the biggest weakness in the series. But then I realized how effortlessly Rowling had worked them into the stories. When people complain that they popped up at the end and felt clumsy, that drives me crazy. The Horcrux's were present in book 1. Book 2 ends with the destruction of one of them. It can't get any better set up then that. If it doesn't work for you as literature, fine. But again I ask...what else were you looking for? You clearly don't even like the series that much, so I don't know what to tell you.