oyceter | Rowling, J.K. - Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows

Entry tags:

Rowling, J.K. - Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows

LJ! You are back! Never leave me again!

Huh. So it's done.

Speaking as a moderate fan of the Harry Potter books, I enjoyed it, am sad that it's over, but still don't think HP is the best thing I have ever read.

I felt the pacing of the book was definitely off; I spent half of the book wondering when Harry, Ron, and Hermione would just get on with it and get to the next Horcrux already. I also rolled my eyes a lot at Harry's emo pain. In terms of characterization, it makes sense to have Harry wanting to go off chasing every loose end and constantly doubting Dumbledore and feeling betrayed by him. But in terms of reader experience, it was really boring. I kept wanting to shake Harry and say, "You do this every single book! Listen to Hermione, for once! Also, please stop doubting Dumbledore what with the every-single-book thing!"

I also have had problems with the women in the series that are still in this book: all the main actors are men (Voldemort, Dumbledore, Snape, Harry), and nearly all the women are objects of romantic affection and/or mothers. The exceptions to this are McGonagall, who unfortunately doesn't get much to do in this book even though she is awesome; Luna, whom I like; Bellatrix, who is evil; Ariana, who basically functions as a love interest in that she is dead and motivates other men; and a few other female professors whom we don't see much of (Trelawney, Sprout, Pomfrey). While I love Hermione, she has spent most of the series being not-listened-to by Harry and Ron, which makes me want to shake the two of them. I'm also disturbed by the portrayal of motherhood in the series. Narcissa, Lily, and Mrs. Weasley are all shown to be willing to sacrifice anything to keep their children safe, which I don't think the fathers do (see: Mr. Weasley's support of Ron's ghoul plan).

Also, even though we're told that many of the women are powerful witches, we rarely get to see them in action. Instead, we get scene after scene of Harry worrying about Ginny and etc.

I sound very negative, which is not the case. I do like these books, but I enjoy them on a fairly shallow level.

That said, I really liked how Rowling kept going back to the first book: another escape on Sirius' motorbike, returning to the origins of the Invisibility Cloak, more on Harry's parents, the Deluminator and etc. I also liked how all the mythology from the previous books tied together.

I'm glad that Rowling somewhat addressed the speciesism (?) in the wizarding community, though to be honest, she didn't do it enough for me. There's no real indication that the entire social order needs to be changed: though the goblin has justification in stealing the sword, he's still portrayed as vicious and cruel; the message seems to be more "be nice to house-elves" instead of "don't use other species as indentured labor"; and we don't get a very good look at wizarding society post-Voldemort. I suspect Rowling thinks that having the characters talking about how bad speciesism is equates the need to change the social order, but all their actions seem to uphold the existing order.

Same goes for the Slytherins -- yes, they are redeemed in the end, somewhat, but Rowling doesn't go as far as I would like, what with the mass defection of the Slytherin House and all. I just don't believe that no one in Slytherin would have wanted to steal away to the Room of Requirement.

I also have huge problems with the epilogue. I am glad to see everyone happy, but I've read too many romance epilogues with everyone married off with children. It would have been nice to have one non-married person there, or one married pair without kids.

Oh right. I was going to say good things too! Neville, Luna and Ginny leading the DA from within Hogwarts was awesome! Particularly Neville cutting off Nagini's head. Go Neville!

I loved the high stakes, starting from Hedwig and ending with Fred and Remus and Tonks. Mad-Eye's eye on Umbridge's door was a particularly creepy touch.

Snape! Wah! I am sad he is dead, as he was one of my favorite characters, but it's not like I wasn't expecting it. Also, while his secret memories almost proved to be a little too sentimental, we still have six books worth of Snape being a complete prick, which is how I like it. Doubtless there will be much Snape redemption fic, but what I find most fascinating about him is his pettiness and his meanness coupled with the ability to be heroic, and that the pettiness and the heroism coexist.

My favorite bit was Harry's acceptance that Dumbledore was sending him off to die. I knew it was coming, but it was still touching, particularly when the ghosts of the Maurauders and Lily came up to him, with him all the way.

In the end, I enjoyed this, as is demonstrated by the fact that I got it yesterday and finished some time around 4 in the morning. And I'll miss the world now that there are only the movies to look forward to.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

Yeah, I was shrieking at my book 'but why did the Sorting Hat say unite with Slytherin? Since apparently the only good Slytherin is a dead Slytherin, and the rest of them are about as much use to the side of light as a chocolate hammer!' But I have a soft spot a mile wide for the Slytherins because of being a Narrative Subverter, so I may have been overly outraged.

The paired-up epilogue was pretty blah, but Neville is apparently a professor? And the professors seem to be celibate, so yay for someone who didn't marry their childhood sweetheart (of course, maybe the lesson is that if you don't have a childhood sweetheart, you just have to be celibate forevah).

Sigh. Yes to the Slytherin thing! I don't actually like any of them, except Phineas, because Rowling portrays them so badly, but I am just irritated at the heavy-handedness of it all.

That's true! I was happy to read about Neville being a professor! Though I was sad that he didn't get a romantic interest, as it seems to be Rowling's way of rewarding people (see: Snape and Lily, which is creepy like whoa). Plus, I feel Neville would make a much better romantic interest than either Harry or Ron, both of whom I want to smack with cluesticks.

Actually, speaking as a mother, I really liked all the mother-stuff in this, especially Molly Weasley stomping all over Bellatrix. I guess you could say that I'm writing under the influence of maternal horomones, but that lioness/she-bear instinct to defend the cubs is real and can't be underestimated. I agree that the fathers didn't seem to have much of the paternal equivalent, and that's an issue.

Yes, it's a lightweight book, but I don't think the author ever intended it to be more, regardless of what legions of silly critics who haven't read any other decent childrens' fantasy may think. I agree that the whole species-ist issue remains disturbing and is never properly addressed, and I was sorely disappointed that the goblin didn't mean to keep his bargain - it's as though Rowling was trying to justify Harry's own scummy intentions regarding the sword.

Neville vs. Nagini was awesome. I liked that he not only got to save the day - he got to do it with style.

I definitely liked Molly stamping over Bellatrix. But I'm just irritated that pretty much all seven books have mothers being overprotective and sheltering of their children, which is also portrayed as the sentimental but still wrong thing to do (in the narrative. Though in RL I am also against overprotecting and sheltering, but that is more personal). Particularly because nearly all the father figures encourage adventuring and going off and acting.

Well, except for Lily, in which case the protective and sheltering is shown as a good thing. On the other hand, it means she's basically a woman in a refrigerator and the only action she really takes is dying.

I mean, I wasn't expecting for it to be anything but lightweight; it's not my favorite book of the series, but also not one of the ones I dislike. But I'm just frustrated that there were signs that it could have gone deeper and more interesting, and it didn't end up going there (aka, the species stuff, the Houses, etc.).

Oh! I forgot! I said Snape was my favorite character, and he is in terms of being complicated. I.e. I think he's skeevy as hell and petty and joins the right side for the wrong reasons, but what I like is that he isn't romanticized in the text (except the Lily chapters, in which he kind of is) like most fictional characters who do the right thing for the wrong reason (see: Spike, Logan, etc.).

But Neville is hands-down my favorite character for sheer awesomeness, followed shortly by Luna.

Hmmm ... it's true that it's been a while since I have read the earlier books (and I don't love them to bits, so re-reads aren't going to happen for while). But did Molly's fussing ever actually stop her kids from doing those things that would allow them to grow? Because there's a difference between making what my late Dad would call "Mommy noises" and actually preventing your offspring from trying their wings. The latter is overprotective and eventually destructive, but the former is just another way of showing love. It's a sort of one-time punch-the-ticket reaction: "I'm your mom, I love you, and so I worry. That's all, thanks for listening."

Yes, every once in a while Rowling shows that she could go deeper - but she doesn't. I would guess that she is not capable of doing so consistently, so it's probably just as well.

Surely there's a difference between romanticizing a character, and having a character show a romantic side? The first is a meta-function performed by the author, the second is something within the character's own (fictional) reality. I thought it was good - it made Snape even more of a real person, and help explain his very ambivalent reactions to Harry. Imagine constantly having to risk your life for the child of your beloved and your rival (a rival who had repeatedly humiliated you)! Snape had a very strong will, to have done so in the face of Voldemort's scrutiny all these years.

But did Molly's fussing ever actually stop her kids from doing those things that would allow them to grow? Because there's a difference between making what my late Dad would call "Mommy noises" and actually preventing your offspring from trying their wings.

I can't actually remember? And yes to the "Mommy noises," but again, the thing that irritates me is that they're Mommy noises, not parent noises. Also, Molly at times does try to prevent Ron, Hermione and Harry from going off and doing things, like how she tries to keep them apart during the first part of HP7. And that looks like complete denial to me, particularly because a) Molly has a history of trying not to get the kids involved (see: her general approval of withholding information from Harry in previous books, which I would argue is considered to be a bad thing by the end of the series, a la the revelations about Dumbledore) and b) Arthur is actively attempting to help the trio with their plans to get the Horcruxes and trusting them.

b) wouldn't bug me as much except for the fact that Rowling has fairly consistently shown Molly to keep information from the trio and to keep them from acting, while Arthur has generally let them do their thing. And I think it can be argued that in RL, keeping info from them could be a good thing, but I think Rowling portrays the secrecy of information and keeping the trio from doing what needs to be done as a bad thing.

Surely there's a difference between romanticizing a character, and having a character show a romantic side? The first is a meta-function performed by the author, the second is something within the character's own (fictional) reality.

Well, yeah, except I think it is a meta-function that Rowling is performing. Part of it is that I've read and watched entirely too many "bad" men transformed by the power of love! So they save the world! And gain redemption! Um, sorry about the sarcasm, but yes, the Spike wars still bug me ;). And I was a Spike fan! After reading

selenak's post, I think Snape isn't quite as romanticized as a lot of bad-guys-turned-good/bad-guys-secretly-good, given that he does have his own moral compass by the end. And I liked her comment about Rowling showing up Dumbledore's disdain, which I think mitigates some of the romanticization. But on the other hand, I dislike it because it's still the "woman in the refrigerator" trope, in which dead women get to motivate others, but they remain dead and therefore inactive, and because it's a trope used so often for men turning to the good side. I think it's some unthinking romanticization on Rowling's part of motherhood and Lily (who seems cool when we see her, and I am not bashing Lily. I just... want her to have more to do).

I like to think that all the Slytherins who went off to the room of requirement weren't sitting at the Slytherin table.

I was annoyed by the complete lack of change re: speciesism(??) in the wizarding world. And none of the muggleborns actually doing anything for themselves, specifically in the Ministry scene where Harry and co. have to tell them all to get out of the country.

I like to think that all the Slytherins who went off to the room of requirement weren't sitting at the Slytherin table.

True. But am still irritated that there was no acknowledgment or.. something. Like, they should get a banner in the room too!

Sigh. I am hoping for good speciesism fic that stars all elves and goblins and giants and they will have a revolution and it will be awesome.

I'm thinking of posting about how the (overdone) parallels between blood-purity and racism and muggles/muggleborns as POC/Jews makes the whole bit where Harry saves everyone and we don't really see much action from the muggleborns/muggles in their own defence kind of icky.

Plus add that to the general feeling in Britain that colonies were 'granted' independence and minorities were 'granted' rights - not that we actually fought for anything.

But I'm not sure I can handle all the 'but they're just books!' sentiment.

Oooo, that's a really, really good point.

Plus add that to the general feeling in Britain that colonies were 'granted' independence and minorities were 'granted' rights

Ok good! I thought I was making that up or projecting or something. That's what pissed me off so much about the Romance of the Revolution panel at Wiscon!!

http://community.livejournal.com/debunkingwhite/511939.html?thread=9141699#t9141699

Unless we're both projecting?

The sidelining of any kind of action taken by POC/colonised nations is so blatant that it's difficult, sometimes, to believe that it's not being done on purpose.

Doh! Friends-only, and I'm not in the comm.

It really is difficult to believe: http://oyceter.livejournal.com/602227.html?thread=5374835#t5374835

Yeah, maybe bringing it up wrt India was completely neutral on his part, but given past history and given the usual tone about these things... argh.

Question: What did Snape mean by "Look at me"? "See me for who I am", or "Show me Lily's eyes one last time as I die", or both?

I assumed the second one there. They'd made an enormous point of his having his mother's eyes, after all.

True, but he was leaking memories at the time, so I assumed one. The second did not even occur to me.

I'm thinking this is interesting litmus test, similar to

What happened at the end of The Giver (careful with spoilers!), e.g. was it happy or sad or what?
Is The Giving Tree a sweet story of motherly love or a bitter illustration of how women are expected to provide all the emotional infrastructure in relationships and no one recognizes this?
Which direction is the dude running in at the end Henry Fool?

1. Both! But I edge more on happy.

And haven't read 2 or 3.

1. I read the ending very literally, and was flabbergasted when someone said the ending was sad. When they explained why, I was again surprised. I had never contemplated that possibility. But then someone else pointed out that it was bittersweet. I still don't know which interpretation I subscribe to.

2. Shel Silverstein picture book. You can probably walk into any random bookstore and read it in 5 minutes.

3. This is a movie by writer-director Hal Hartley, one of my favorites. Still, it makes me laugh that

coffeeandink says one of her friends said, "I've just watched a movie, and I cannot figure out if it is brilliant or the worst movie ever." So they watched it together, and still could not figure it out.

The script got published, and Hartley explained that he filmed the ending a certain way, but during editing, a friend/relative made a comment that showed he clearly interpreted it the opposite way. Hartley realized he could edit it so that the direction was unclear and left up to the viewer, and at that point he realized *he* himself did not know which direction was chosen by the character.

But a sequel just came out, which apparently was not very good, and relies on a specific choice. As it turns out, it was the way it was originally written and filmed and how I interpreted it.

Aside: Music from the soundtrack (also composed by Hartley, under the name Ned Rifle) was used during coverage of the Olympics or a big tennis match, and that made me inordinately pleased.

I had read it as "see me for who I am," but now that everyone mentions the Lily's eyes thing, I'm guessing it was probably that (which makes it sort of squicky!).

Nice review. You brought up pretty much everything I have though about the book.
Was it just me or were the deaths handled poorly? I don't think any of them really had the proper amount of time and tension that they needed to be really effective. Especially since so many of them happened off screen.
I hated everything about that epilogue and am very much tempting just removing it from my book.

I really liked Dobby's death scene! Poor guy. But yeah, I wanted to at least see what happened with Tonks and Remus. I did like Fred's after the reunion with Percy -- ouch!

But none of them were really done as well as Cedric's, but that's probably because that was one of the very first in the series.

Yes! I forgot about Dobby, because I was never that fond of him, but he got a decent death and a burial. So many others were killed off screen or you don't know what happened with them. I wanted to know how exactly Umbridge got Moody's eye for one.

I agree that many of the offscreen depths had insufficient context/development for them to be properly meaningful. That was disappointing.

One thing that confused me about Umbridge was: Did she know Voldemort was coming back in power, or was she still totally in denial about that?

I have no clue. I was a bit under the impression that she had joined the Death Eaters, or was at least sympathetic towards them because she had Moody's eye. OotP couldn't locate Moody's body after he died, so she was either around when it happened or she bought the eye off of someone else.

Yeah, me too. That was really creepy.

Yes, Rowling really needed a bit of text between the end of the battle and the silly Epilogue, with some reactions from the characters about the events, both glorious and tragic.

Yeah. I think I would have liked an epilogue that was closer to the events, sort of like the ending of book 6 and how it gave us time to grieve for Dumbledore.

My very disjointed thoughts on the book are remarkably similar to your more organised ones. Having devoured it on the Tube last weekend I'm now reading it more slowly to try and get my thoughts into better order.

Definitely agreed on the pacing. If they had to faff around for half the book, we could at least have seen more of how the rest of the world was getting steadily worse.

It's so true! Though it's not like the pacing kept me from devouring it at wee hours in the morning anyway ;).

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

Rowling, J.K. - Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject