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

[oyceter]

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.

Comments

[chomiji]

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.

[oyceter]

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).