It's seventeen years after the Battle of Hogwarts, and Harry Potter's son, Albus, is nervous that he might end up in Slytherin. Harry, however, sees no shame in being in Slythering, but, he says, if you really don't want to be in Slytherin, the house will listen to your suggestions. After all, he was nearly put in Slytherin himself - or was he?
Each of Rowling's characters have a wide range of both positive and negative traits and do both good and bad things. It's what makes her characters seem so real.
There are a lot of people who accuse Rick Riordan of ripping Harry Potter in his series Percy Jackson and the Olympians. After all, the two stories have a lot of similarities. But they also have some interesting differences.
This is, however, a list fun things that fans like when accompanied by good, likable characters with a thought-out compelling plot that takes place in a well-built world.
You know what's annoying in a main character? It's when the movie/series/books display him/her as this socially awkward person in the beginning of the movie, but by the end of the movie the character is perfectly "normal". Or when they weren't even that "not normal" to begin with.
If it wasn't for the prophecy, there is a good chance Harry wouldn't have been a part of Voldemort's demise at all, though he no doubt would have fought against him. What makes him so special, so much more vital than the other students who fought Voldemort was the prophecy.
Dumbledore says something else, too, that's odd. He specifically states that Harry must die by Voldemort's hand. Why would this be true? At first, the reader might think its a requirement for the horcrux to be destroyed. However, multiple characters have destroyed horcruxes by themselves before, and the only stated requirement needed as that the object that is the horcrux must be destoryed beyond repair. Killing a human host seems like it would destroy the horcrux - as killing Nagini, Voldemort's snake, destroys Voldemort's final horcrux. So what's the difference?