Just run away if you hate spoilers and haven’t read the book.
I finished Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows much sooner than I anticipated, but it moved along at such a rapid pace, I couldn’t put it down. Which made the blogging over last weekend lean, but since so many readers were probably reading the book, too, it wasn’t really a loss. To make the literary snobs happy, I will say that Rowling’s dialogue can grate, she gets stuck in heavy exposition, and she relies way too heavily on deus ex machinas. But those are my biggest problems with the books, and she does so many other things so well—amazingly so for such popular books—that I don’t mind some of the cheap devices she uses.
My first thought on it was, naturally, about how much I loved the meta plot. At first I was suspicious of the Deathly Hallows plot, since it seemed like a lot to introduce in the very last book, but I loved the way she established it from the get-go. The answer to their problems was to be found in a story that was routinely dismissed as “just” a children’s story, a plot I took to be a giant fuck-you to everyone who dismisses the Harry Potter series as just children’s books. My second thought was I so called it. I rate my speculation at 80%, though, because I didn’t guess that Snape would actually learn to be a better person from loving Lily. Which ended up working well, I think, especially since his better side was definitely imperfect.
The detail work in the book was remarkably good for how fast the plot moved. Rowling made Voldemort truly terrifying; the scene where they feed the teacher to the snake actually freaked me out a little. The scene where Ron kills the locket Horcrux worked much better than it should have. It could have been completely corny, but I think it ended up making Voldemort all the scarier, because Ron’s fears were so ordinary—so human.
The Deathly Hallows plotline ended up working extremely well. I was glad that Rowling ended up creating a threesome of magical objects to complement the seven-some of Horcruxes. I’m extremely glad that she set it up for each Horcrux to be destroyed by a different character, lending a sense that Voldemort really had to be defeated by teamwork. (And that Draco kind of sort of destroyed one was interesting.) The twist at the end over who owned the Elder Wand worked especially well, particularly since the secret of how to pass the wand only made sense after Harry managed to accept that Snape was not only a good guy, but in some ways a better man than he was. Harry realizing he could only proceed after learning to be more like Snape paralleled how Snape could only grow after learning that if he loved Lily, he should be more like Lily. Snape’s plot was easily the most interesting part of the series, and I regretted but understood that Rowling couldn’t show more Snape in the last book without making it all about him. But still, the most arresting image of the entire book remains, for me at least, the last bit of Snape’s Pensieve memory, where he was sitting alone in the headmaster’s office talking to Dumbledore’s portrait, surrounded by a school that was rejecting him and the only person who really understands him is dead. I loved that Snape and Dumbledore made roughly the same choices in life (adolescent flirtation with fascism that leads to a tragic death of a loved one), but for what amounted to basically chance, it ended up ruining Snape’s life while Dumbledore became a hero.
What I really loved about the book was that Rowling fleshed out and finished her themes on government corruption and the nature of prejudice very nicely. Since the 5th book on, Rowling has been using the books to comment on the particular flaw in human nature that’s really been on display since 9/11, which is the tendency of people to react to threats by becoming the very thing they fear. In the real world, Bush and Osama bin Laden are two sides of the same coin and while they are officially enemies, they work in conjunction to keep people fearful and violent and divided against each other. Rowling has her magical world reflect ours, with the Ministry of Magic turning people against each other. What I really liked, though, was the overall sympathy exhibited towards the people who cower in fear before the government. It’s incredibly important to show that fascism can only creep up if people are given a good reason to think that they might be okay if they keep their heads down and their mouths shut. The scenes in the Ministry of Magic were particularly strong in this regard; you really got the strong impression that the Death Eaters were slowly bleeding out the internal resistance instead of just firing everyone and taking over. I don’t know enough about the British government to speak to the resemblance, but the Ministry takeover resembled the bleedout of our courts and the Justice Department here by the right wing. Same with Hogwarts; taking out the pro-Order professors out one at a time is a much better strategy at taking control than a mass firing.
The theme of prejudice was also resolved in a very interesting way. Reading the earlier books, I was afraid that Rowling would never give a satisfying explanation of why so many otherwise ordinary wizards decamped to the Death Eaters. But in the end, the allure of racism was established very well. She didn’t wag her finger at the audience about prejudice, but instead painted a compelling picture of the complexity of the issue. The various differences that created tensions were not nothing, as the goblin storyline showed. The very real differences in the value of ownership between goblins and humans created a real tension, and the difficulty of maintaining tolerance in light of this difference was not downplayed. Which ended up, I think, reinforcing the importance of tolerance all the same. Ever since the beginning of S.P.E.W., Rowling has been playing with the idea that the soft liberal approach to racism, where differences are denied in the name of tolerance, is, while not as bad as outright racism, problematic all the same. Hermione finally managed to overcome some of her own prejudices in the big Kreacher scene and realize that you’re not really reaching out to others if you don’t respect their different values and mindsets.
What I really like about the prejudice theme is that it played out on so many different levels. On the racism level, Rowling played a neat trick by having the reader feel strong disdain for Muggles from the beginning, only to reveal later that it’s just that disdain that motivates the Death Eaters, causing the reader to have to confront her own tendencies towards prejudice. But it’s also the prejudice between the houses (finally Harry sees that Slytherins are not hopelessly horrible people) and between “types” of people (the cheery jock James Potter both is on the same side as nerdy Snape and loves the same woman) that are held up as flawed. And then there’s the prejudice of not respecting differences; in the end, Voldemort’s fatal flaw is just such a prejudice. Voldemort’s ongoing assumption that all people were as shallow, loveless, and vain as he ended up blinding him to the double agent in his midst.
The theme of love was the one I dreaded the most, but it worked out. If the mother-love theme established from the get-go hadn’t played out thoroughly, the notion that love is the greatest power would have been too corny to bear. As it was, Mrs. Weasley and more importantly, Cissy Malfoy’s willingness to risk everything they believed they had for their children completed the theme. That Snape and Lily were good friends from childhood ended up selling the Snape-loves-Lily storyline, too. That Snape died no doubt thinking of Lily also bolstered it; by the time Harry dies for his friends and gives them protection, you really do believe that would work. It would have been cool if Snape’s ghost had joined the others in walking Harry to his death, though. I would have liked to believe that the antagonism between Snape, James, and Lily faded after death.
The epilogue was almost too brief; I guess Rowling saw the end of the last Lord of the Rings movie and decided not to make that mistake herself. Also, I’m so amused/grateful she finally got rid of that useless owl Hedwig. Did that character ever do anything?
So, Pandagonians, what did you think?
I would have liked to believe that the antagonism between Snape, James, and Lily faded after death.
On the authority of the Mahabharata, I assure you that it does.
Liked it!
I just wanted to be the first post.
Curse you, Arun, for beating me!
Well, Snape didn’t get to speak enough, and the epilogue should have mentioned everybody’s careers (and Luna!!). Also, Albus Severus is SO getting teased for his name.
Regardless, Molly Weasley has the best line of the whole book.
I was just glad that Snape didn’t turn out to be entirely nice. I was dreading the “he’s really entirely noble inside” arc I thought it would take; characters aren’t real if they’re entirely good or bad, and it would have been much too pat for him to have simply been the best good guy ever. I liked that he was doing all the right things, but for selfish reasons, and that it also had an air of tragic futility about it. No matter how much he did to protect Harry, that still didn’t remove the pain he caused Lily. He died still looking for absolution.
I think you should smallify your images. Sheesh!
I had much the same response as you - though the dialogue was simply horrendous the book was exciting and well worth the read.
My main objection lies in the fact that Rowling seems to have taken a pile of the most popular internet theories, thrown them together in one book, and called it a day. You and many other predicted the entire Snape scenario (although to her credit even knowing those theories I didn’t realize until the end that they were true), Dumbledore wanting Snape to commit the murder to protect Draco’s innocence, Harry’s being a Horcrux, one of the Weasley twins dying, the castle comes to life to defend itself, house-Elves and other “minor” creatures play a role in the final battle, and on and on and on…..All of these theories had been posed in multiple places repeatedly already. Other than the Deathly Hallows meta-plot, I’m trying to think of one point that wasn’t repeatedly proposed.
Also, that picture is HUGE. I’ve never had a picture stretch a browser window at 1920x1200 before.
This was an element I had to explain to my son, who thought the whole scene of Narcissa whispering to Harry was completely off the mark. I had to explain to him that her love for her son was more powerful than her fear of Voldemort. That Lucius and Cissy’s love for Draco redeemed them in the end because instead of fighting with Voldemort, they went off looking for their son.
I was relieved with how she did the Snape/Lily storyline–I figured the reason Dumbledead trusted Snape was because of Snape’s love & regret that he got her killed, but I thought it would come off as very creepy and Niceguyish. It still did, but I agree with Amanda that making them friends as children helped the relationship become believable, especially if you think of poor abused little Severus growing up in a Muggle area, with no friends and then one day he discovers a little witch his age!
I also like how Snape died triumphant in a way. I figured he was going to die in this book, but I didn’t think in any way other than throwing himself in front of a curse for Harry, or being discovered as an agent. I liked that Voldemort never uncovered his true loyalties.
I thoroughly enjoyed the book. I suppose if I was picky, I could find a lot of things wrong with it. Similarly, if I had read the internet predictions and postulations I may have felt somewhat disappointed. I think the attitude one takes going into something usually has as much to do with their opinions afterward as the thing itself. I expected to enjoy the book, willfully suspended my disbelief and critical judgment (I’m not a lit professor or a reviewer, so why not?) and had a lot of fun reading it. Just like I enjoyed “Live Free or Die Hard”. Can someone actually jump a car into a helicopter and blow it up? Probably not, but it was exciting to watch. But, I digress…
I think my favorite part was the way Rowling handled Harry going to sacrafice himself. I think the mixture of resignation and regret and all those other words that start with “r” was very deft. It wasn’t all noble, it wasn’t all fear… And when the final moment came, there wasn’t a lot of exposition, it just happened. I cried.
Dude, wtf is up with random words in the post being links to ads? That’s just a little dishonest. It causes people to click on them, thinking they’re relevant to the post.
Sorry, don’t want to derail your lovely HP thread here. Please carry on.
One of my problems with Rowlings writings is the need for a thesaurus. She used the word plinth abut 4 times in 8 paragraphs. And though so small for most everyone else, it grates on my nerves like ginfernails on a chalk board.
She could have just broken it up once by using the word pedestal or base… she’s done this in other books too.
Anyway:
I was saddened with Hedwig died.
I was stunned when Mad Eye and Fred died.
I cried when Dobby, Remus, Tonks and Snape died.
I cried the most and had to put down the book when reading the chapter “In the Forest.”
I lost it when Lilly said to Harry, “You’ve been so brave.” It took me a few minutes to get myself back together again enough to continue. I found out last night while watch Olbermann that Rowling cried the most in this chapter too.
PS. Is anyone else having problems with everything timing out before they they can get their thoughts typed, do the anti spam numbers and then hit the blaspheme button? I’ve taken to copy and pasting my comments to notepad so I don’t loose them in the process)
I can’t read the other comments; they’ve been replaced with smiley faces. Hopefully I’m not being too repetitive.
As I was reading it, I loved it. It’s a pretty superb action sotry, and I loved all the same parts that you mentioned.
I would have liked to see a little more about Snape’s motivations for joining the death eaters. Since his childhood apparently consisted of being repeatedly victimized by two opposing camps of purebloods, it seems odd that he would ever have joined them willingly.
Anyway, the day after I finished, I found myself a little disappointed. There were just too many loose ends. First, plot issues (how does the sword end up back in the hat? What was the poiint of Harry’s wand’s auto-pilot?)
More importantly, her story was much *smaller* in scope than I had been lead to expect. There are many, many crucial questions left over from previous books she never gets around to answering. I expected the fate of the wizarding world to be decided, but we don’t get a clue about what the new society looks like.
Similarly, we never learn what are the dark arts and what’s so dark about them? That, and in what sense love is *harry’s* power are two sides of the same issue, never really resolved.
Finally, the book, while good, is oddly disconnected from the previous volumes. I was *certain* that the Veil and the Door from book five would play a role; since they don’t, I’m not sure why they needed to be in the books at all.
Similarly, owing to the total reversal of fortunes, six and seven don’t join cleanly. Virtually *none* of the ongoing themes and questions from six crop up in seven at all, and nothing of the plot carries over execpt Snape and Horcruxes. It would have been better to go straight from 5 to 7.
Still, I’m not as grumpy as I sound– it’s still a superior book, all told.
My “lost it” part was during that same scene, but when Harry asked “Does it hurt?”
I had to put the book down and cry for a few minutes before I could go on.
Well, Snape didn’t get to speak enough, and the epilogue should have mentioned everybody’s careers (Weasley’s Wizard Wheezes!! Luna!!). Also, Albus Severus is SO getting teased for his name.
I’m quite surprised about Hagrid not dying. I thought he was going to kick the bucket for sure. I’m saddened by the deaths of Lupin and Tonks - they were rather casually thrown away. Seeing the twins get torn from one collective happy entity, to two seperately recognisable entities, to one rather lonely George wasn’t exactly fun either.
Regardless, Molly Weasley has the best line of the whole book.
Well, Snape didn’t get to speak enough, and the epilogue should have mentioned everybody’s careers (Weasley’s Wizard Wheezes!! Luna!!). Also, Albus Severus is SO getting teased for his name.
I’m quite surprised about Hagrid not dying. I thought he was going to kick the bucket for sure. I’m saddened by the deaths of Lupin and Tonks - they were rather casually thrown away. Seeing the twins get torn from one collective happy entity, to two seperately recognisable entities, to one rather lonely George wasn’t exactly fun either.
Regardless, Molly Weasley has the best line of the whole book.
A couple of responses: yes, comments are playing up for me, too; and the sorting hat can produce Gryffindor’s Sword for any ‘true Gryffindor’, according to a Wikipedia article that was hopefully edited by someone in the know.
I wasn’t buying the Snape Hearts Lily stuff in any of the books until Rowling threw in one particular moment in the Snape’s Tale section that really sold it for me.
It’s the bit where they’re on the Hogwarts Express, inadvertantly in the same car as James and Sirius. Snape and Lily have been friends for a while, in the absense of any wizard-friend competition. But then James and Sirius (the popular kids) open their goddamn mouths, and you can practically SEE them trying to steal Snape’s one friend away.
This very scene played out at least 5 or 6 times in my own childhood — I, the nerdy weirdo, would befriend someone (usually the new kid on my block, or some outsider who would have no way of knowing my outcast status), only to have them snatched away by the dominant social order once anyone found out.
This finally sold Snape to me as anything other than a creepy villain who aspired to things he had no right to. And it finally sold Lily as especially good for not immediately listening to James and Sirius.
Er.. Jake? I dunno if it’s my browser or yours or what, but the only words linked are a prediction thread on HP and an amazon link to the book…
Anyway, I enjoyed the book immensely, best in the series IMO. I love how things turned out with Snape, though I did get a little squicked by the whole “NiceGuy” Snape vs “Asshole” Potter.
Mind you, James Potter really WAS an asshole. I’ve never liked him.
My big beef with the whole series thus far was how Lily was basically neglected, and I’m glad that its worked out that, despite everyone telling Harry he was so much like James, what really mattered ended up being how much like Lily he was.
I also ended up a little squicked with the whole thing where we realise Lily got married and knocked up at 19, but I think Mrs. Weasley explained it pretty well in HBP when she was objecting to Bill & Fleur’s wedding… that back when Voldie was around the first time, everyone thought they were going to die tomorrow, so they were getting married and having kids left right and center.
The epilogue, however, was extremely lame.
I read it in less than 24 hours, and cried for the last two chapters.
I loved the way as these books have progressed, the characters have gone from black and white, good and evil to more fully rounded and believable people. watching these characters make their difficult choices under great threat in the last book was heartbreaking. (mr.lovegood turning in harry because of his fears for luna, and after he turned the quibbler with luna into the only real source for news, nevilles gradual transformation from bully magnet to sword weilding hero) made this one ring so true.
My biggest problem with the text was Rowling’s insistence on keeping the narrative with Potter the entire novel. It forced lots of exposition to be handled in dialogue which is far from her strong point. It also, unlike the last few texts which seemed overly long, seemed cut too short. You had very little of the Rowling flourish for small detail in the work. You had the great piece in Luna’s home, but outside of that it seemed sparse.
That said, this book is much different from the previous 6 in that it abandoned the school calendar to a great degree. Rowling wanted an adult Potter with adult problems and the way to do that, which I thought was handled well, was to contrast what was happening to the mischief that Potter had at Hogwarts through the first 5 books.
This is where a familiarization with the rise of fascism comes in handy (as it has for me many times during the reading of the books). If you want to be a part of the dominant group you become like them, but even more so, no matter how badly they treat you. Their rejection of you is seen by you as a validation of the beliefs that you share, and you believe that they are wrong in rejecting you because you are (you believe) just like them, and if you are just More So and Demonstrate It and They Understand then you will be welcomed into the magic circle. this is especially so if you have (or believe that you have) something to hide which would make you an outsider if they knew.
On the fascism theme: One of the things that I realized early on was that Rowling has a superb grasp of the mechanics and realities of 1930s British political history. She brilliantly recreates in the magic world all the denial, all the wishful thinking, all the secret, dirty little hopes in many hearts for the dark things to triumph.
All right, how did my “all the secret” become a hyperlink to an advertising site? I didn’t put that there!
Well, Snape didn’t get to speak enough, and the epilogue should have mentioned everybody’s careers (Weasley’s Wizard Wheezes!! Luna!!). Also, Albus Severus is SO getting teased for his name.
I’m quite surprised about Hagrid not dying. I thought he was going to kick the bucket for sure. I’m saddened by the deaths of Lupin and Tonks - they were rather casually thrown away. Seeing the twins get torn from one collective happy entity, to two seperately recognisable entities, to one rather lonely George wasn’t exactly fun either.
Regardless, Molly Weasley has the best line of the whole book.
A couple of responses: yes, comments are playing up for me, too; and the sorting hat can produce Gryffindor’s Sword for any ‘true Gryffindor’, according to a Wikipedia article that was hopefully edited by someone in the know.
A few days ago I read an interview with Rowling where she elaborated upon the lives of the characters in the 19YA scene. Unfortunately for her, she was completely wrong by most accounts. I think the epilogue was made so incredibly annoying and vague is so everyone can ignore it and make up their own versions.
(See, what happens is Luna becomes the Minister of Magic, after Kingsly decides to open up a small gift shop in Godric’s Hollow.
Hermione becomes the Secretary-General of the UN, and permanent secretary to Minister Luna, due to her position between the wizarding and muggle worlds. All major diseases are cured.
Ginny becomes the Madame of a very exclusive brothel.
Ron becomes an Quiddich umpire, and marries Hermione.
Teddy, by way of his parantage, can change into a werewolf at will, so he joins the X-Men and becomes a surrogate son to Woverine.
Lupin was gay gay gay all along.
Something horrible happens to Rita Skeeter.
And Harry becomes an author by the name of J.K.Rowling, and coaches Quiddich on weekends.)
Well, Snape didn’t get to speak enough, and the epilogue should have mentioned everybody’s careers (Weasley’s Wizard Wheezes!! Luna!!). Also, Albus Severus is SO getting teased for his name.
I’m quite surprised about Hagrid not dying. I thought he was going to kick the bucket for sure. I’m saddened by the deaths of Lupin and Tonks - they were rather casually thrown away. Seeing the twins get torn from one collective happy entity, to two seperately recognisable entities, to one rather lonely George wasn’t exactly fun either.
Regardless, Molly Weasley has the best line of the whole book.
A couple of responses: yes, comments are playing up for me, too; and the sorting hat can produce Gryffindor’s Sword for any ‘true Gryffindor’, according to a Wikipedia article that was hopefully edited by someone in the know.
or 21st century Amerika
Well, Snape didn’t get to speak enough, and the epilogue should have mentioned everybody’s careers (Weasley’s Wizard Wheezes!! Luna!!). Also, Albus Severus is SO getting teased for his name.
I’m quite surprised about Hagrid not dying. I thought he was going to kick the bucket for sure. I’m saddened by the deaths of Lupin and Tonks - they were rather casually thrown away. Seeing the twins get torn from one collective happy entity, to two seperately recognisable entities, to one rather lonely George wasn’t exactly fun either.
Regardless, Molly Weasley has the best line of the whole book.
A couple of responses: yes, comments are playing up for me, too (this is about the 3rd time I’ve had to copy-paste this); and the sorting hat can produce Gryffindor’s Sword for any ‘true Gryffindor’, according to a Wikipedia article that was hopefully edited by someone in the know.
Of all the people there, he asked the guy who fell through a curtain…
we never learn what are the dark arts and what’s so dark about them
my understanding is that the dark arts are about equivalent to “black magic” — stuff like killing people, torture, starting fires that can only be put out by a certain counterspell, etc.
as for what’s so bad about them, well, uh, duh. killing people mercilessly with a single spell is wrong. torture is wrong. etc. the dark arts seems to me to be concerned with coming up with magical ways to do evil things to people. and since, as Bellatrix said, “you really have to mean it!”, the dark arts must therefore be elevated to a more evil level than the equivalent in the Muggle world (guns, bombs, the guillotine, etc). I can shoot you accidentally, I can shoot you because I think I have to — I have to really want to lay the cruciatus curse on you.
Though this leads us to one of the bigger thematic holes in Deathly Hallows — “For The Greater Good” is shown as being a terrible evil, in the sense of Grindelwald, Voldemort, and the Death Eaters’ desire to control Muggles, “Mudbloods”, lesser magical creatures, etc. and do evil things to them “for the greater good”. But Harry et al do evil things “for the greater good” all the time. There’s a difference in scope (throwing the Imperius curse on a goblin to break into Gringotts to save the world is obvs less evil than systematically persecuting Mudbloods), but then, couldn’t one justify the latter by saying that it’s less evil in scope than something else?
Hedwig was Harry’s companion when he was away from Hogwarts. She gave him hope when he was away from the world where he felt the most comfort. Her death not only showed that Rowling was willing to kill any character in the narrative, but that once Hedwig was gone, it’s open season on any of the people Harry loves from a writing standpoint.
She was Harry’s pet and friend. For that, I see her as an important character and an important part of Harry’s life. She sent a lot of notes to people and did what owls do in the Wizarding world.
Hedwig was Harry’s companion when he was away from Hogwarts. She gave him hope when he was away from the world where he felt the most comfort. Her death not only showed that Rowling was willing to kill any character in the narrative, but that once Hedwig was gone, it’s open season on any of the people Harry loves from a writing standpoint.
She was Harry’s pet and friend. For that, I see her as an important character and an important part of Harry’s life. She sent a lot of notes to people and did what owls do in the Wizarding world.
insistence on keeping the narrative with Potter the entire novel. It forced lots of exposition to be handled in dialogue which is far from her strong point.
The main reason she does this, as far as I can tell, is that it’s one of the primary rules of mainstream fiction writing. She put herself in this situation when she had the narrative stay with Harry for the first 6 books. It might have been fascinating for her to violate this rule, but it’s very, very rarely done in mainstream bestseller type fiction, and there would be both a lot of pressure on her not to — i’m also not sure her writing skills are up to breaking a rule like that successfully.
And, of course, I don’t think the Potter series would work at all if it had been written in third person omniscient.
Not to mention that the need to stick with Potter as narrator doesn’t necessarily force her to use expository dialogue to the level she did. She could have made greater use of the pensieve and Harry’s scar (both of which work perfectly well as “cheats” to the narrator rules), or had them find out what they needed to know via research (as she does when Hermione steals the Dumbledore Unauthorized Biography). or she could have structured the plot differently so that they weren’t constantly chasing exposition. She could have used the book of fairy tales more, for instance (surely there must be more than one story in there).
And, also, of course, you have to face the fact that, well, books need to have dialogue in them. Rowling’s dialogue is her weakness (though I sometimes have a soft spot for Ron’s ‘Cor Blimey!” Britishisms), but you can’t exactly tell her “OK, so just try and avoid dialogue as much as possible in this next book, since you clearly suck at it.”
I’m convinced that “Pius Thicknesse”=”George W. Bush,” with Cheney as Voldemort, the real power behind the throne.
Sorry about the image, everyone. I’m still working out the bugs on the new site, too.
My main objection lies in the fact that Rowling seems to have taken a pile of the most popular internet theories, thrown them together in one book, and called it a day.
My take is the complete opposite. The idea of throwing punches that are implausible or defy the narrative just to surprise people makes my stomach churn. She had a story outlined that made sense, and some people out there are just really good at piecing together themes, narrative, and character and figured out where she was going with everything. That certain predictions came to pass shows that some readers are really good at understanding narrative and that she is a consistent writer.
Jake: I agree it’s dishonest. But don’t blame me. I deliberately asked the advertisers not to put that feature in there, and they put it in anyway. I was lied to, and I’m removing the code right now.
Also, I’m going to be the first to point this out, if anyone else noticed it.
In line with Clytemnestra’s realization that Ms. Rowling is in serious need of a thesaurus, did anyone else ever notice that anytime she’s describing some low-grade villain or otherwise “untrustworthy” character, she mentions that they have a hooked nose? wtf is with that? antisemitic much?
That, and the realization that anytime she wants to paint an extremely minor character as untrustworthy, wrong, pointless, silly, etc. she throws their dialogue into the stereotypical working-class cockney style speech? Of course I guess this is countered by the fact that all the really important evil characters use stereotypical upper crust language. But it’s still vaguely annoying. And I do wish that if she was going to do that consciously, she should have had fun playing with the silly British upper class tendency to use the “one” construction all the time (for instance having Lucius Malfoy say something like, “One ought to go back into Hogwarts and retrieve Potter, sir,” rather than just straight up offering to do it).
Appy polly loggies for the triple post! I won’t repost this one.
I was really upset when Hedwig died! I loved Hedwig. And I HATED the epilogue. I wish I hadn’t read it. I didn’t want the image in my head…of them all grown up and cheesy and…stale.
I’m with you about everything else, though.
I recognized that she needed a thesaurus several books ago - it was one of the things I was willing to read over though.
sextuple post, I mean. I say. Septuple now. Octuple after this. Might leave the point now.
Rowling seems to have taken a pile of the most popular internet theories, thrown them together in one book, and called it a day
Except that there are plenty of theories she ignored. A lot of people were saying that Draco would redeem himself. He never does, really. His parents are somewhat redeemed in that there is something they care more about than being Voldie’s Minions. But that doesn’t really vindicate them very much. And Draco fights on the wrong side till the bitter end, and even in the epilogue Ron and Harry are still extremely distrustful of him and warn their kids away from little Scorpius Malfoy.
No in the end Draco, instead of fighting on either side, shows the weasel he truly is by pleading with the unknown Death Eater that he is really Draco Malfoy, one of them.
He’s not fighting in the end .. he’s hiding.
Rowling had the ending of the book imagined from day one, and had been writing the book so that it would all make sense in the end. Intelligent people picked up on the Snape/Lilly issue, the division of the twins, the death of Dumbledore, and the possibility that Harry would have to sacrifice himself in order to defeat Dumbledore. I loved the ending. I cried a little during “The Prince’s Tale” and when Fred died. I got a little misty when they went into Luna’s room and she’d painted pictures of all of them together with the word “Friends” written in gold around everyone and she wasn’t there because she was in prison for it.
I too was a little disappointed that Luna wasn’t mentioned in the epilogue, and I was disappointed that Harry stayed with Ginny (I was definitely a supporter of Harry/Luna). I was big happy about Neville making the full circuit from bumbling oaf to hero who helps to save the day.
I would have picked Hagrid to die over Hedwig because Harry always saw Hagrid as a sign of invincibility (along with Dumbledore). That said, I’m glad he survived, the poor shmoe deserves a little happiness in his life.
I was also surprised at how Rowling under-used the Malfoys in the end. I knew that Narcissa would play a role (and I was pretty happy with the role she played), but I really would have expected Draco to actually turn and fight with Harry after being rescued from the fire.
I think that what Rowling did, though, was really pretty savvy. Just because stuff is leading up to something doesn’t necessarily mean that’s how it will be, which kept her from being too trite in the end.
Do you think that parents are still going to buy the series for their kids now that the ending is revealed to be so dark? I knew Harry was going to survive because she would have been committing long-term-sales-suicide by killing him off, but still, the death of Hedwig, Fred, Tonks, and Lupin (not to mention Snape for those of us who liked him) might cause parents to decide that it’s “too much” for their little kids?
But he had a receding hairline in his 30s! Surely that is punishment enough!
Also now everyone’s going to be talking about his big AS/S.
Though this leads us to one of the bigger thematic holes in Deathly Hallows — “For The Greater Good” is shown as being a terrible evil, in the sense of Grindelwald, Voldemort, and the Death Eaters’ desire to control Muggles, “Mudbloods”, lesser magical creatures, etc. and do evil things to them “for the greater good”. But Harry et al do evil things “for the greater good” all the time.
See, I strongly disagree that was a hole. I think that’s the difference between the “Dumbledore was a rat bastard” and “Dumbledore a flawed but ultimately great man” theories. I’m in the latter camp. I think Rowling’s point was that the greater good is the prevailing principle, but humans, being flawed, often mix up the greater good with their own personal desires for power. The “greater good” when it comes to dominating Muggles is a comforting lie to the oppressors. But it is the truth when it comes to Harry or Dumbledore dying for the cause.
That it’s difficult to tell the difference between the right “greater good” and wrong “greater good” just makes the theme more interesting, to my mind.
Also, I’d like to point out that “The Prince’s Tale” totally vindicated Snape from the “Nice Guy” accusations.
I liked this book, more than I thought I would. There was just so much hype, it being the last book and all.
I definitely second (or whatever number) the desire to know the characters later careers. The epilogue was interesting, mostly because you have to think about how hard it must be, to go from having your entire life (and death) defined by your relation to this Dark Wizard. But I would have liked to know precisely how ordinary (I really wanted to know who ended up Minister of Magic!)
Lupin and Tonks’ deaths were just to… glossed over. I wanted to know more. That and the explosion-death of Fred was too fast. I would have cried, but there just wasn’t enough time.
Though, the amount of fan fiction that’s going to result from this book, particularly cousin/cousin, is going to be amazing.
Clytemnestra, it seems to be a problem in most of popular fiction coming out these days. Almost every bestseller type book I read, especially anything over about 300 pages, is rife with examples. I don’t know whether it has to do with changes in the editing process, the over-reliance on computerized copyediting, the pressure to write ever-longer books (especially true in Rowling’s case, where I fear there’s this editorial need to stroke preteen egos by inflating the page count), or what, but it freakin’ drives me crazy.
I tend toward Amanda’s view of the Greater Good slogan, although I’m not sure about the use of Cruciatus.
But Voldemort doesn’t use that slogan. He uses “Magic is Might.” What he does is good in his mind (see Social Dominance Orientation Scale). This in fact seems like the main difference between the old Ministry statue and the new one. The old statue implicitly tries to justify wizard rule in dishonest ways. The Dark Lord’s version just glories in it.
early in the week I had said that there was a tab from which Rowling could start a new set of books (BTW she is doing an 8th book that will tell us how everyone ends up, more about Snape, and other characters, stuff she couldn’t put in the series and the writing dead ends.)
I think that “tab” is Scorpius and Theodore Remus.
My last comment for a few hours - and I really am frightened at the amount of reading I’ll have to do on this thread when I get back
Rowling had the ending of the book imagined from day one, and had been writing the book so that it would all make sense in the end.
You know, I’m almost certain this isn’t true. It’s almost never true with any writer of big blockbuster serials. Mainly because when they sit down to write the first installment, nobody ever knows whether it will be successful enough to turn into a 7-part serial, or what kind of thing it will evolve into, etc.
It’s pretty clear to m that Harry Potter and the Philosopher’s Stone was written to stand mostly on its own, and that Chamber of Secrets was meant as a simple sequel. It’s not until Prisoner of Azkaban that it becomes clear that this is a 7-book story arc, that it’s meant as much for adults as for children, what the stakes really are, etc. And the overall arc doesn’t really gel into place until book 5 — between the interlude feel of Goblet of Fire and the amount of time that elapsed between the release of books 4 and 5, I’m pretty sure that’s where she really set down the remainder of the plot, not back in 1990 when she started writing Philosopher’s Stone on a lark.
I loved the blatant penis joke (yes yes, I can be very immature in my humor) on page 113:
“‘This isn’t your average book,’ said Ron. ‘It’s pure gold: Twelve Fail-Safe Ways to Charm Witches. Explains everything you need to know about girls. If only I’d had this last year I’d have known exactly how to get rid of Lavender and I would’ve know how to get going with… Well, Fred and George gave me a copy, and I’ve learned a lot. You’d be surprised, it’s not all about wandwork, either.’” [emphasis mine]
Awesome
J.K. Rowling is a dirty, dirty woman.
Also, @ Clytemnestra — I’d put money on Hogwarts: The Next Generation as a series of ghost-written junky kiddie serials.
Well, even if the first couple of books were throwaways in a lot senses, the next 4 books established characters and themes to the point that a lot of the plot twists were inevitable, if you were reading closely.
I’ve been looking forward to this thread all week!
And there is so much to say - I wasn’t planning to stay up to read the book, but that ended up happening nonetheless. Also, while I sobbed my eyes out when Sirius died in Ootp and Dumbledore in HBp (and actually, Cedric too in GoF), my eyes only got a little teary during “The Prince’s Tale” chapter, because I never liked Snape event hough I suspected he was good, and his story just broke my heart.
Other thoughts: I loved the book, I love that Dumbledore became a much more complex figure, the fascism themes as already noted in this thread, the importance of family and motherhood (Go Molly Weasley! And Cissy Malfoy, for that matter), Hermione basically being the smartest and most clever person ever, etc etc.
I didn’t really notice when Hedwig died - I suppose it was because I was shocked that there was so much violence at the start, and I was positive that Hagrid was about to die. I was also caught offguard by Lupin and Tonks’ deaths - it wasn’t until I reread the last third of the book (hmmm the best part!) that it really sank in.
I also really enjoyed the Horcruxes/Hallows bit (though, what do people thing - was Harry really Master of Death? How did Voldemort “kill” the Harrycrux with the Elder Wand? so many questions…). And even though “The Prince’s Tale” is one of the best chapters in the whole book (seriously, read Snape’s Death scene with the black eyes/green eyes bit, and then look at the picture at the beginning of the chapter in the US edition, I found it incredibly moving), my favorite was King’s Cross. I’m still working out the reasoning behind it.
Agreed that the Epilogue kinda sucked… though I also read the JKR interview and I guess I didn’t really want to know the names of all of the 19 Weasley grandchildren… though JKR also said she was planning on writing an HP encyclopedia at some point that expands on all the little details in the series…
well that is quite enough for me to have written to start with, I’m looking forward to everyone else’s comments!
Moi,
Kingsley becomes Minister.
I don’t have the original link for the interview, but I c&p’d it here on the 4th page of this thread
She expands on the epilogue. Luna is a Naturalist. LOL
I wish there would have been more Snape in this book. But I must say for the few pages he was there his character was used exceedingly well. And I can’t wait to see Alan Rickman play the death scene
Except it is, as a cursory look at the last decade of Jo Rowling interviews will reveal. Apparently she took an editing pass at the final chapter, but to my eyes that epilogue felt disconnected from the rest of the book, alluding almost not at all to the specifics of Harry’s story, calling back instead to the feeling of the first volume.
Your cynicism is charming and in this case (thankfully) unwarranted. I’ve no doubt that the first book was written with a certain standalone vibe on purpose - getting it published was an outside shot at best - but Rowling was assembling the story for several years before it was published; tying the third volume (and not the first two) more tightly into the long backstory and overarching plot was just a sensible move given precisely the half-assed serial storytelling we’re used to.
I loved the humaness of the characters. I loved how Rowling continually blurred the lines regarding the natures of the characters, and how that Harry came to see that as he got older. In book 5 he sees that his father wasn’t the epitome of goodness. In the final book he gets to see that Dumbledore could be weak and selfish and that Snape could be noble. So much kid lit divides characters into good and evil. Even Voldemort comes off as more of a damaged person than an evil one.
I caught R’s interview on the Today Show and was disappointed that she said Ron and Hermione become aurors. I really did see Hermione becoming a wizard lawyer and in the ministry,
Moi,
Rowling talks about the characters’ careers: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19959323/
I still haven’t seen anything about this “Someone will perform magic very late in life for the first time” bit; seems it was just left out?
The epilogue annoyed me a bit. I get what Rowling is saying about not wanting to make it look like she crammed too many things in, but it wouldn’t have been unreasonable to talk about how that whole inter-species equality thing is coming, not to mention the careers of the main characters. It just felt like “No don’t worry, they got married and had kids, it’s okay”. I wonder if George had the strength to continue on with the joke shop.
I can’t wait for the promised encylopedia; I have the two little mini-books (Quidditch Through the Ages and Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them); I’m just a sucker for little extra details like that.
The epilogue was the only part where I started getting teary-eyed. When he addresses his son by his full name, “Albus Severus,” I lost it.
Also, I was a bit pissed that Moody’s gone. I loved his character.
I tried posting this about 20 minutes ago, my apologies if this becomes a repeat.
I’ve been looking forward to this thread all week!
And there is so much to say - I wasn’t planning to stay up to read the book, but that ended up happening nonetheless. Also, while I sobbed my eyes out when Sirius died in Ootp and Dumbledore in HBp (and actually, Cedric too in GoF), my eyes only got a little teary during “The Prince’s Tale” chapter, because I never liked Snape event hough I suspected he was good, and his story just broke my heart.
Other thoughts: I loved the book, I love that Dumbledore became a much more complex figure, the fascism themes as already noted in this thread, the importance of family and motherhood (Go Molly Weasley! And Cissy Malfoy, for that matter), Hermione basically being the smartest and most clever person ever, etc etc.
I didn’t really notice when Hedwig died - I suppose it was because I was shocked that there was so much violence at the start, and I was positive that Hagrid was about to die. I was also caught offguard by Lupin and Tonks’ deaths - it wasn’t until I reread the last third of the book (hmmm the best part!) that it really sank in.
I also really enjoyed the Horcruxes/Hallows bit (though, what do people thing - was Harry really Master of Death? How did Voldemort “kill” the Harrycrux with the Elder Wand? so many questions…). And even though “The Prince’s Tale” is one of the best chapters in the whole book (seriously, read Snape’s Death scene with the black eyes/green eyes bit, and then look at the picture at the beginning of the chapter in the US edition, I found it incredibly moving), my favorite was King’s Cross. I’m still working out the reasoning behind it.
Agreed that the Epilogue kinda sucked… though I also read the JKR interview and I guess I didn’t really want to know the names of all of the 19 Weasley grandchildren… though JKR also said she was planning on writing an HP encyclopedia at some point that expands on all the little details in the series…
well that is quite enough for me to have written to start with, I’m looking forward to everyone else’s comments!
For those of you with random links showing up — it’s an adware. I don’t remember which one, but try running lavasoft’s ad-aware and/or spybot.
Back on topic — I skimmed the comments to get that up, but I wanted to comment on the ‘internet theories’ thing — I think that JKR is just that predictable. There’s a lot of clever & unique stuff in the books, but the basic plot outline isn’t among them. I’m not at all surprised that lots of people who read lots of fantasy figured out where she was going with lots of stuff.
And I believe that she’s had the basic storyline in her head for all these years. Details changed as the story got fleshed out, but I think the basic motivators — Snape, ‘love conquers all,” etc. were there from the start. I don’t see how she could have started writing the boy hero/supervillain story in book 1 without having some idea of what the eventual conclusion would be.
And the death that most affected me was Hedwig. Poor Hedwig, just wanted to fly and hunt and get some attention every now & then — and Harry had to keep him in his cage the last few weeks of his life. Aww. (And where’s Crookshanks?)
We’re heading out to breakfast, but I just had a sudden thought:
I know a lot of people are disappointed in the sketchiness of the ending, but I think JKR knew perfectly well that a LOT of people were going to pick up the book and flip to the end to see who lived and who died, and so she was very careful not to tip her hand. If you read the end first and don’t see Luna in there, you’re going to be a lot more nervous during the battle of Hogwart’s. Same reason, I think, why Snape’s portrait didn’t show up when Harry goes into the headmaster’s office at the end.
as a cursory look at the last decade of Jo Rowling interviews will reveal
Yeah, the author always says they had it all planned from day 1. It’s almost never true, or true in any literal sense (it is true, of course, that any writer worth their salt will have no problem imagining the further adventures of the characters). This is what bugs me especially about George Lucas — he practically had to flee the country at the release of Star Wars, because it was expected to be such a dismal failure. There’s almost no way a sequel was in the cards during production of the first film, let alone a double decker trilogy arc. But there he goes, over and over, insisting that, really, he had the whole storyline laid out from day 1. No, actually, he didn’t. And no, actually, pretty much no previously-unknown writer of a major series does, either.
Though I will admit to Amanda that it’s obvious, by either book 3 or book 4, that it’s growing into a large-scale story arc, and at least Rowling is honest enough to stick to ideas laid out in the first few books — she doesn’t do what so many other authors of big series do and pretend things that happened in the first installment never existed so as to change the rules and get the outcome she wants. Rowling does the smart thing and lets her characters go where they need to go, lets the story play out they way it needs to play out. It doesn’t feel artificial, or forced, or like a cash-in on the success of books 1-3. That’s the major strength of the Potter series, in my opinion, and the only reason I’ve stuck with them through the years.
But it doesn’t mean that Rowling laid the whole thing out from day 1. Because she so totally obviously didn’t, and couldn’t possibly have.
An excellent review.
One of my favorite things was the way JKR left the Malfoys. They aren’t totally redeemed; in the future, they’re still sort of miserable people who are natural sparring partners with our heroes. But it’s touching that at the end of the battle, the Malfoys aren’t gathered up and lynched by the Order (as Order collaborators would be if the Death Eaters had won). They’re not magically made into perfect people; the magical world is just returned to a normal, non-existential-crisis mode.
I hated that Harry used Unforgivable Curses. It may have been my only serious problem with the book. The epilogue was not totally necessary/a little corny/utterly predictable but not jarring.
And I agree with you on being satisfied that she didn’t throw in weird curveballs just for the sake of surprise. There’s something about resolving a story in the foreshadowed way that’s satisfying.
I could go on for many paragraphs, but overall I was much more sympathetic than most commentators online to DH as an end to the series, and I think your review is apt.
??”…(adolescent flirtation with fascism that leads to a tragic ..”
An inquiry on this very small point.
Is this sort of political infatuation commonly experienced or encountered?
Who knows about this as a phenomenon?
Other than —
[Full disclosure; ‘I WAS a teen-aged fascist…’.
(And haven’t read a lick of Harry Potter but have ALL the films)],
I have never seen it referenced.
I’ll be back. Anyway.
-If anybody knows? -
It seemed to me, with the Horcruxes, that Rowling was doing quite a bit of nearly-defensive explaining about Tom Riddle’s diary (from Chamber of Secrets) and how it was related to the other Horcruxes. That made me think that the Horcruxes were not part of the original outline.
This from the hated WSJ..
“Essay -Generation Hex
A first-time reader of the ‘Potter’ books searches for meaning in the final volume
By TUNKU VARADARAJAN
July 28, 2007
There is conceit — often a conceit — at the heart of any decision to pick up and read a new book. Mine, in the case of “Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows,” is that I had not read a single one of J.K. Rowling’s books until earlier this week, and so fancied myself — indeed, reveled in the status of — a Harry Potter virgin.” …
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB118557388707180774.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
….Some have asked whether we should fear, or cheer, for a world whose kids have derived some elements of their childhood morality from Harry Potter’s Manichaean world. I think the question is overblown. For one thing, the movies have ensured — as movies often do — that the stories have acquired the shape of pure fun, detached from the darkness and light that can reside within private readings of text.”
Glenn Greenwald would observe that we’ve enough of GWB/Manichaeian…already
Ah and another thought about the commenter who said that Draco wasn’t redeemed - he did “save” harry and company when they were trapped at the Malfoy mansion, he refused to positively identify them… now, that doesn’t mean that he didn’t do other bad and creepy things, but to me that moment continued the way he was portrayed at the end of HBP, and also foreshadows his mother’s role in decieving Voldemort and in the process saving Harry.
@ Catrala — but he didn’t “save” them in any active way. He just didn’t send them directly to their deaths. If that was meant to be Draco’s redemption, he would have actually lent a hand to get them out of there, or said, “no, this is OBVIOUSLY not Ron Weasley, you know not every redheaded wizard is related to them. And Hermione is way uglier than this girl, c’mon, get with the program, people!”
First of all, I want to say something:
J.K. Rowling is a brilliant writer.
Yes, yes, clunky dialogue this, occasional need for a thesaurus that — no writer is perfect. And yes, she steals liberally, but so does every fantasy writer, and indeed, every writer alive.
But Rowling’s ability to structure narrative and is one of her great strengths, and narrative is the heart of a story. After Harry’s escape occurs, the story almost has the feel of a coiling spring, with the escape of Hermione, Harry, and Ron into the wilderness and their long, uncertain wandering, where they don’t know what they’re really supposed to do. This takes up a tremendous amount of time in book terms, longer than it needed to, and it felt intentional. When the spring is finally wound tightest, Ron returns from his exile, destroys the horcrux, and from that point on we’re moving quite rapidly toward the end of the story, with essentially nonstop movement of plot until the very end.
There were little things that were note-perfect, too. The way that Harry’s march to his death is stretched out, but the moment of death is simply a moment — not drawn out, not even really explained, just a blip, and he’s gone. The circling final battle between Voldemort and Harry, with the two orbiting the space between them, and Harry warning Voldemort to repent — that was a truly great scene. And the last lesson of Dumbledore, at King’s Cross Station, was in the finest tradition of the God-Teacher.
Rowling’s other great strength as a writer is her characterization. None of her characters were all-good or all-bad in the end, not even Harry. Harry is arrogant at times, too dependent on and possessive of his connection to Voldemort, an imperfect, flawed, human character. Not even Voldemort is completely evil — he’s just broken inside, a man who has taken his hatred of self and turned it outward at the world.
People care about the Potter series because Rowling fleshed out her characters and put them into interesting situations. If there were elements of the plot that had to happen (Dumbledore’s death, because the God-Teacher always dies; the mano a mano confrontation between Harry and Voldemort; Harry rejecting a relationship with Ginny because the hero can’t be tied down with worldly connections until the battle is won), they happened as much because of the conventions of literature and the Hero Quest structure as anything.
The Potter series is ultimately a monomyth — the same essential plot and structure as Star Wars and Gilgamesh and Le Morte d’Arthur. But she executed the series with with and charm, creating a world that rang true. No author aspires to more than that, and she deserves praise for that.
And incidentally, I loved the “wandwork” double entendre as well.
There may be some parents who will decide to steer their children away from the books because of the more dark traits at the end, but I think that number will be relatively small. I also think that the people who do take that tack will be making a grave error. One of the most unfortunate mistakes we have made as a culture over the last fifty years is the extent to which we attempt to wrap our children in layer after layer of cotton batting until they couldn’t so much as skin a knee if they tried.
No matter how uncomfortable it makes us, death is an integral part of life. Over the last fifty years, we have pushed death away, shielded ourselves from it so that we needn’t deal with the essential reality of its omnipresence, and we have even more carefully shielded our children to the point where pain and death are completely unreal to them. This is as unhealthy a state of affairs for a child as it is to be surrounded by nothing but death and pain. Death without life is damaging. Life without death is similarly damaging.
At the end of the day, I think this is what lies at the heart of Rowling’s genius. She does not flinch in the face of death; she does not try to protect her readers from their own mortality or from the mortality of those they love; and she does not attempt to hide exactly how painful it is to lose someone. More importantly, she clearly and straightforwardly shows that this pain can be dealt with and overcome.
There are parents who would skitter away from the mere notion of their children having such knowledge. I am not one of them. My daughter is almost ten now, and she has read all of the HP books. I am very comfortable with this fact, and am grateful that Rowling has, in her way, given her another tool with which she can face the day when someone she loves shuffles off this mortal coil.
It’s worth noting for the fundies who hate Harry Potter that Harry’s march to his death is basically a quote from Narnia, with Aslan’s sacrifice.
J.K. Rowling is a brilliant writer.
Yes, yes, clunky dialogue this, occasional need for a thesaurus that — no writer is perfect. And yes, she steals liberally, but so does every fantasy writer, and indeed, every writer alive.
But Rowling’s ability to structure narrative and is one of her great strengths
errrr, no.
Rowling is one of the better writers of popular fiction out there nowadays, or maybe just one of the few with an actual soul, doing it for more than just the paycheck.
But no, “brilliant” she’s not. Firstly, a “brilliant” writer needs to be a better master of dialogue (or at least a moderate non-failure at dialogue). A “brilliant” writer doesn’t paint herself into a 746 page expository corner. A “brilliant” writer doesn’t constantly resort to deus ex machina (OK, maybe Sophocles and Aeschylus get a pass, but that’s because they did it literally).
Not to mention of course that if Rowling is brilliant, where does that leave the real grownup writers of great literary fiction? If Rowling is “brilliant” in anything but an inflated sense, that makes all the living masters of fiction demigods? Where does it leave the great writers of fantasy and sci fi, people like Lewis, Tolkein, Le Guin, Bradbury, etc?
Rowling is very good at the task she’s been given (turn your cute children’s story about a fantasy version of the British prep school system into a 7-part allegory that can be enjoyed at almost any level, by anyone in the world). And she has a great deal of integrity. And she actually cares. All of which is incredibly important, and doesn’t diminish her at all. But among the great writers of the Western Canon? er, no.
First of all, did Xenophilus die? I’m not sure, but I do hope Hermione’s brave and thoughtful escape did him some good.
I enjoyed this book, but feel like I did at the age of twelve or whatever when Return of the Jedi was over: a stunning realization that the anticipation for the next chapters was not going to be necessary. I just hope that when Rowling is in her sixties, she won’t make Jar Jar Kreacher a major character in the prequels.
I’m looking forward to the next two movies, the loads of books, the theme park (though that they decided to put in in Florida makes me want to scream,) and all the thinking about magic, family, life, love, friendship, choices, and all the other stuff found in this richly-imagined world. And I’m glad it’s gotten my son to read long books.
I think that Rowling deserves praise for leaving Draco as an in-betweenish sort of figure. The fact is Draco is neither redeemed, nor cursed. He’s essentially a little shit who doesn’t have the wit or the backbone to be truly and effectively evil. Like Bart recoiling from young Miss Lovejoy, “you’re trying to turn me into a master criminal when all I really wanted to be was a petty thug!”.
To extend the examination of prejudice- Rowling also used Ron in an interesting way. In terms of dealing with the other races, Ron is the privileged individual, even growing up in a “liberal” house with a dad obsessed with Muggles and his best friends being Muggle related, he has no clue about House Elves and Goblins as actual individuals. It simply never occurred to him, even though he is a “good” guy at heart, he looked pretty bad in planning negotiations with Griphook. In addition, Ron’s understanding of the other magical creatures, etc.- he never really paid attention and he always looked down on Hagrid. Rowling was quite sly with her treatment of Hagrid. Hagrid’s constant incompetence really stopped working as comic relief and led the reader to continuously question why anyone would keep him around. This was Rowling’s genius again. Dumbledore and Rowling knew that Hagrid’s persona could eventually contribute to a war where all creatures would end up taking sides, even creatures marginalized by the mainstream community.
So many things in the book examine privilege and Rowling doesn’t take the easy way out. We so want to sort characters into types, just like the reality of the sorting hat, which in our world is based on privilege, privilege, privilege. How was Snape supposed to be a good guy when he was constantly marginalized/shunned. I loved this reality. I also loved the unstated aspects of Snape/Lily’s friendship. They were either both great at Potions or perhaps Snape really helped Lily (just like Hermione would have to help Harry with everything, and Harry was just like his mom, getting help from Snape). Snape really was the flipside of Dumbledore, not Harry (as another commenter mentioned as well).
I hated the fact that it was implied that Neville used the sword of Grif. to kill Nagini- that was just too much.
Anyway, Amanda I think was right on.
6079, I think that’s spot on.
I, for one, cannot imagine a redeeemed Draco Malfoy. Though I’m curious to see how the family’ll take it when he inevitably marries a Mudblood.
I’d also love to see some sort of AS/S storyline where Scorpius is an absolute rebel, Sirius to Albus’ James.
Just to add- I think the “Nice-guyish” aspects of Snape were pretty realistic. That’s how people feel. Many of the characters in the book are defined by traumas they go through in the formative years- this is how people actually are- they get damaged, and they aren’t perfect.
as for Hagrid, I always liked him as a reminder that an individual doesn’t have to have every possible superlative in order to be a good person, or worthy of heroic status. Hagrid may not be the wisest, or the craftiest, or always possessed of the best motivations. But his heart is in the right place, and he has his own contributions to make.
BTW, was anybody worried that Hagrid had “turned” to the dark side? Early in the book when it’s revealed that Ginny, Luna, and Neville had been sent to Hagrid for punishment, I was really worried that he’d end up the Carrows’ enforcer.
Ok- I’m not able to see comments, and the RSS is only showing the first 10, so I apologize in advance if any of this is redundant. I should probably wait to post until I get the glitch figured out, but I’ve been bursting at the seams all week on this…
First- things I liked about DH- the big action scene in the beginning with the polyjuice Harrys was well-executed. It set the expectation that anything was possible, and I liked that. I was sad to see Hedwig go (I liked her- very cat-like owl), but her death was the real wake-up jolt. I also liked that Rowling set the main action for most of the book outside Hogwarts. It would have rung untrue to have them still sitting around worrying about quidditch and detention. The Hallows themselves were an interesting subplot, and I agree with Amanda that the parallel between the significance of the “children’s story” in the book and HP itself was a clever bit of commentary. Most of all, I liked the treatment of facism, authoritarianism, and racism the book undertakes. All of these themes had been building, and I’m glad that Rowling doesn’t wuss out and skate over this in favor of action! in this book. And I love the redemption of Severus, and agree that more Snape would have been nice, but as the book is called “Harry Potter”, and all… Giving Neville the task of killing Nagini was pretty sweet, too. In a way, he fulfilled the prophecy as much as Harry did.
What I didn’t like about DH- the very first scene at Malfoy Mannor. We all ready know Voldie is a badd-ass- we don’t need the sacrifice of a “red shirt” teacher to get that point. Move along. The wedding and Ms. Weasly’s nagging didn’t do much for me, either. Ok– your hiding “enemy #1″ at your home, one of your Order has been killed by an apparent double-cross, the Ministry is teetering on the brink of destruction– and your going to spend time rounding up the Wellingtons to make a good impression on the Delacours? And on top of that, you are going to invite everyone in the wizzarding world to your home for the wedding, with “enemy #1″ thinly disguised as a cousin? I also didn’t like the listlessness of the the middle of the story when the trio is hiding out. I know this is supposed to be Harry’s “midnight of the soul”, but it is over-long. And, I must say, it reinforces the unfortunate impression I’ve had for a while- Harry is a dunce. On that note, I don’t like the whole Ron/Harry/Hermione dynamic here, either. Hermione has ALWAYS proven herself to be the more reliable (and useful) friend, but the whole prodigal son welcoming of Ron back into the fold just doesn’t give Herm her dues. “King’s Cross” was an important bit of exposition to clear up Harry’s real destiny and to clear Dumbledore’s name, but it was awfully Obi Wan for me. And the Epilogue! Oh, the hatefulness of the thing…
I was not an original Potterite- I only started reading the books this summer, so I probably don’t have the same emotional investment some people have. I liked the series overall, and I feel DH was a satisfactory end, but I am troubled by the lost opportunities in this series (especially that dreadful epilogue). All along, I’ve been waiting for HP to do something revolutionary, but it seems to be pretty well entrenched in the Status Quo. I particularly dislike the handling of sex roles in the series. While we see parity in women and men in their magical ability, there is no parity in their positions. The statue in the ministry fountain with the wizzard standing taller than all other magical beings (including the witch) is a telling image. As I said before, Hermoine was clearly the “better” friend, by any measure, but Ron is obviously Harry’s “best mate” throughout. Even the use of the words “wizzard” and “witch” feed this. And of course we’ve got the nagging mother/wife stereotype (Molly Weasly), various mention of “hags”, the dismissal of Hermione’s moods by Harry and Ron as “girl’s stuff”, Harry’s Nice Guy ™ blundering with Cho, James Potter being an insufferable ass but still “getting” the girl in the end… I could go on. And the epilogue, with its blatent trumpeting of the old heteronormative, family values crap really did nothing for me. I know it is kid lit, but I think it could have been written so that a lot of the patriarchal crap would have gone bye-bye, and it still would have been an entertaining read.
But among the great writers of the Western Canon? er, no.
I think this is setting the standard for “brilliance” well above what I would set it as. Sure, there are literary imperfections and there has been a lot of heavy borrowing thematically from other authors, but I think she did what she set out to do in a way that is inclusive and brilliantly uses characters and allows them to become actual characters as opposed to monolithic clunkers. Among the great writers of Western Canon are people whose books I wouldn’t read if I had a gun to my head, and that doesn’t make them less brilliant, but I have a feeling that the actual test of “brilliance” is whether people are still enamored with the Potter series in a hundred years or so, and I, for one, think they will be.
my only real problem with the epilogue is that, oh, c’mon, Harry is so not going to marry Ginny. This is the same problem I had with Six Feet Under’s counterpart sequence. I know all the teenagers who grew up reading these books want to believe that you grow up to marry your high school sweetheart. But you don’t. I’m willing to give Ron and Hermione a pass, because they are sorta perfect for each other. But Ginny is quite obviously a “first love I always carried a torch for” character, not Harry’s future wife. I can see Harry and Ginny running into each other 10 years later at Ron & Hermione’s wedding and wondering what might have been, having a drunken final one night stand. But that’s about it.
Which leads me to my other beef with the epilogue and something Rowling constantly implies — why does her universe marry people off so young? James and Lily Potter would have to have been married before they were 20. Fleur Delacour can only be 19 or 20. In the epilogue, there’s an allusion to Ted (who’d be just barely 19) marrying one of Fleur and Bill’s daughters (who’s not even thought of in the book’s finale). And, no, sorry, Ginny Weasley is not going to be married with a kid by 23, which she’d have to be if James is 12 in the epilogue. In fact, not only does this grate on me, but I find it really, really troublesome.
moderation — still a factor?
or is it the gremlins eating my posts?
i don’t want to be a brat and post a zillion times, but i had something i really wanted to say, and the new format is confusing me.
ill try to keep these comments brief:
1) harry totally went frodo in this book.
2) it makes complete sense that the epilogue was written before almost anything else. on its own what does it tell you: harry, hermione, ginny, ron, and draco all live. voldemort loses and snape/dumbledore are ultimately ‘good’ in the eyes of harry. thats about it.
the next two are just a couple points to speculate about:
3) grindelwald never actually disarms gregorovitch, he just steals the elder wand. the line of succession seems to be broken unless the two dueled later on?
4) at the end of the book harry says that as long as hes never beaten the power of the elder wand’s power will die with him. seems like auror would be a questionable choice for a person looking to avoid dueling.
and lastly:
5) i enjoyed harry using the cruciatus curse. he was afraid of his anger getting the better of him and there it peaked out.
JackGoff — when someone calls a writer “brilliant”, as opposed to “pretty damn good” or “successful” or “enjoyable to read” or “creative” or whatnot, yeah, I tend to think that they think that the person in question is, at the very least, up there with current writers who’ve established themselves as somewhat canonical.
Marquez is brilliant.
Pynchon is brilliant.
Pamuk is brilliant.
Murakami is brilliant.
Coetzee is brilliant.
Kenzaburo is brilliant.
Achebe is brilliant.
Grass is brilliant.
Morrisson is brilliant.
Iris Murdoch, George Orwell, and Graham Greene were brilliant.
J.K. Rowling is rather good, at best.
Wait, why is everyone branding Snape a “Nice Guy”? Sure he was obsessive and clingy, but there’s nothing suggesting he felt entitled to Lily’s affections. I thought the “Nice Guy” was defined by thinking that because he was so Nice he deserved the cookie of women’s attention. That’s not Snape - and just because he carried a torch for her long past when it was reasonable, there’s no evidence he ever harassed or guilt-tripped her about it. I call foul on the “Nice Guy” slur.
What I liked: Neville kicking ass and standing up to Voldy, of all people, the action/storyline, including the Hallows and finding the Horcruxes, the redemption of Snape and finding out Dumbledore is human after all.
What I hated:
- JKR’s continual attempts to make kids out to be little duplicate versions of their parents, cf the epilogue scene. What the hell is with that? That creeps me out more than anything else.
- No Luna in the epilogue. How the hell do you make an amazing character like that and then oops, forgot to mention her still existing 19 years later.
- What Neko-Onna said re: sexism
- Harry and Ginny do not have a relationship to speak of. Major oversight to not have your main character at least somewhat interact with his One-True-Love™.
- The sword from the hat trick was a good reference back to CoS, but it’s the, what, fourth deus ex machina in this book? Just have Neville send a Reducto curse or something at Nagini in the midst of the duel and that would suffice.
It does rather beg the question of why did Lily choose James? Frankly, I’m not entirely clear on that. It seems to be a bit of a validation of a Nice Guytm rant: that the wooden-headed muscleboy gets the girl. I got the impression that if Snape hadn’t been so fascinated with the deatheaters-to-be and dark magic, Lily might have gone with him. But not choosing Snape does not answer why she went with Potter, does it?
I tend to think that they think that the person in question is, at the very least, up there with current writers who’ve established themselves as somewhat canonical.
And that’s fine. I just don’t agree that that standard is universal, and that the term “brilliant” is not something as set in stone as the term “canonical”, so making one the criteria for the other is dubious.
I recalled how at the end of each of the previous books, Dumbledore would call Harry into his office, and he’d tell him that, well, Harry, you’ve survived another year of derring-do and adventure; it’s time for some exposition! And he’d explain everything that had happened. I was wondering what would happen in this book, as Dumbledore clearly wouldn’t be around to deliver the exposition… but silly me, I thought being dead would stop him. Like clockwork, we get, in the midst of all the action and death death death, Dumbledore explaining everything that’s gone on. Not that I can think of a better way of doing it, but it was a heck of a cliche by the end of the series.
I wasn’t worried that Hagrid had turned when Ginny, Luna, and Neville were sent to him. After all, it was Snape who sent them to him. It was the perfect way for Snape to keep his cover; he seemed like he was punishing them when he wasn’t at all.
or, hey, maybe Neville uses some of his actual brilliantly gifted skillz to defeat Nagini, like maybe by poisoning her via some obscure herbology thing?
I’d have thought it a stroke of genius had Neville tossed some totally mundane hunk of weed down her gullet, she withers and dies, and when asked wtf that was, Neville goes, “oh, c’mon, everyone knows delphinium is poisonous to most reptiles…”
i couldn’t stand hermione in this book. she was completely useless and was written much more femininely than she had been before. her one time destroying a horcrux wasn’t even important enough to include as a major plot point. kinda bugged me. tons of things could have been hermione’s doing. like jumping on the back of the dragon or something.
i think defining good authorship as some kind of unattainable standard that not that many people (read: women) can live up to is painfully ridiculous. rowling wrote a magnificent 7-part book series that is popular all over the entire world. charles dickens, james joyce, et al have never done that. does it matter if your book is genius if it’s painful and boring to read? maybe it’s me, i dunno. the second i find out someone’s part of classic literature that’s usually a code for me to avoid ever reading it because the book is most likely lame and uninteresting.
Horcruxes can’t be destroyed by something that cheesy; the Gryffindor sword had absorbed basilisk venom, and so could destroy Horcruxes. Unless Neville was casting Avada Kedavra or Fiendfyre, he wasn’t going to be knocking off that snake without some kind of tools.I just don’t agree that that standard is universal, and that the term “brilliant” is not something as set in stone as the term “canonical”, so making one the criteria for the other is dubious.
Poorly worded. What I meant was:
I just don’t agree that that standard is universal, and I think that the term “brilliant” is not something as set in stone as the term “canonical”, so making one the criteria for the other is dubious.
What I mean is that it’s in the eye of the reader what they feel is “brilliant writing”, where as accepted canon in literature is a whole different animal.
Unless Neville was casting Avada Kedavra or Fiendfyre, he wasn’t going to be knocking off that snake without some kind of tools.
Meh, I know that, but I wanted Neville to do something genius with it, like in the way the opoponax suggests.