Rowling did about as well as anyone could have hoped in this book.  Her writing is still a bit rough (as many have noted before me), but it's gotten better with each book.  Her strengths have always been her plotting, detail, inventiveness, and ability to convey philosophical insights in a non-preachy way, and those come through in spades in this book.  Especially her ability to bring the complex threads of her story together for a satisfying conclusion.  Frankly, I didn't think she'd be able to do it -- no insult intended towards her.  Her imagery is more than occaisionally reminiscent of Tolkien, but that didn't bother me too much (fan of Tolkien that I am); Tolkien's imagery was itself reminiscent of the great literature before it.  Those archtypal plot devices have been around since the Epic of Gilgamesh.  If the middle part was 'slow,' I didn't notice, and it's a pretty piddling complaint all things considered.  All in all a very good read.  Keep the tissues handy.So here's my tangential question:  Does Dumbledore remind anyone else of George Smiley?  It struck me several times that there was a resemblence between Dumbledore's machinations and multilevel motivations and those of Smiley in LeCarre's Karla trilogy.  More than a little of LeCarre's darkness as well.  Perhaps those are archtypal images too. 

Question: What is novel?
Answer: Rowling did about as well as anyone could have hoped in this book