Ye Deathly Hallows
Jul. 24th, 2007 11:14 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
corvideyeOkay, I've read it now (thanks, ![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
grian_ruadh!). And I must say I found it quite satisfactory. It’s nice to see that Rowling really has grown with her audience (and her character) and come up a notch as a writer. Ultimately, it’s about what all serious fantasy is about: death, rebirth, afterlife, survival. Like Earthsea, Narnia, Tolkien, The Dark is Rising, Out of the Silent Planet. I don’t in any way put it in the same quality bracket as those, but it was good. It’s about moving to a more adult understanding of what death really means--both an intolerable loss and a necessary transition; an inevitable change of being, not an end.
It was refreshing to break from the usual year-at-Hogwarts structure of the series (amazing how those adventures always managed to coincide exactly with the school year!), into something new and less predictable, though I thought there was a little trouble sustaining the middle. My main complaint about the series in general is that Rowling assembles plot elements in a rather contractor-like fashion; they work, they make you turn the page, but one can too often see the bolts, screws, cantilevers, and labels saying ‘I’m introducing this otherwise extraneous element because I’m going to need it in the third act.’ You can pretty much take a highlighter and mark “this random fact or object will be an important plot point later”. I also got a bit tired of her overuse of breathless leading questions ("Why hadn't Dumbledore told him? Why hadn't he explained? What was Voldemort trying to find? Where was the wand now?" ). My other complaint is the use of slightly-too-convenient elements at some times ("oh look, house else magic is different") but not others (and yes, I know one can always concoct some explanation somehow, but she has a tendency to pull things out of her sleeve that borders on cheating). But overall I thought she handled this one well, and with more sophistication than before. I mostly find this series enjoyable and interesting but not emotionally gripping, but here were several passages I found moving and strong: Harry visiting his parents' grave, Harry digging Dobby's grave, Harry's surrender to Voldemort. Those passages and some others really lifted above. There is a lot of strong, raw, deep emotion in this book, hard truths, painful histories uncovered. The grief of loss, the struggle to love, the pain of prejudice confronted--in this book Rowling goes to a new level, and at last displays some subtlety.
Of course, Harry's surrender to Voldemort is an exact mirror of what Aslan does in the Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe: surrendering to his enemy, being killed, and being reborn. But that's okay. It is handled well, and surrender and rebirth are after all archetypal human themes. For a long time I had figured (I remember saying this to Karl a couple weeks ago) that the link between Harry and Voldemort meant that Harry would have to die in order for V. to die. But I think Rowling found a satisfactory way around it... and I liked the fact that it was ultimately not due to some deus ex machina potion or amulet whipped out of, well, a hat, but simply a choice of whether to go back or move on. Ever since the cover art came out, I had been intrigued by the expression on Harry's face: not of fear or anger, but of hope and acceptance, almost joy, his arm outstretched as if to embrace, to receive. And that turns out to be perfectly expressive of that triumphant moment of surrender.
I was surprised she didn't do the obvious thing and resurrect Dumbledore in phoenix-fashion (and the use of Dumbledore's brother as a red herring prolonged that expectation effectively). Overall this book showed a greater maturity in dealing with death: that it happens and is not overcome even by the most magical objects, but also that it is not truly the end. She very firmly establishes (via the very nature of the Horcruxes) a comforting belief in everlasting souls. (For that matter, is anyone really dead and gone in a world where you can have posthumous conversations with portraits? I'm surprised everyone doesn't have a portrait painted!) Ultimately, here as in other books, the message is that both the villain's and the hero's desire to defeat death is not only impossible, but also not desirable. When Harry sets aside his own desire to escape death and loss, he truly grows up, and truly conquers, as Voldemort (trapped forever in an infant's stage of spiritual development) never can.
Here, and throughout, I've found the attempts to make Harry doubt Dumbledore a bit forced and contrived, and I found the attempt to alienate Ron and Harry particularly unconvincing. But I did like how a once clear-cut good character like Dumbledore was re-examined and complexified, and in the end made neither a saint nor a villain, just a flawed but worthwhile person. Part of growing up is learning that our former heroes--and villains--contain a far richer and more interesting mixture of both good and bad than we once thought. And I like how Harry struggles with his own dark impulses throughout. Overall, the morality of the series has matured, developing themes like corrupt government, racism, and slavery. Ultimately, Harry's victory comes down not to superior firepower, but to moral choice. And what a great line this was: "Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?" After all, that is the very nature of a book!
The actual deaths didn't affect me much--only Hedwig made me briefly sad, poor dear; Lupin and Fred were unfortunate (I always thought Lupin was interesting, and I agree with others' comments--killing off one twin is cruel; better both than only one!). The rest--shrug. I found Harry's _reaction_ to Dobby's death a lot more powerful than the death itself (I always found Dobby rather irritating, if useful). And it would have been interesting for them to try to deal with Snape's awkward redemption if Snape had lived, but he makes a good martyr too. I suppose I can appreciate the realism that there were a fairly large number of 'good guy' casualties, both named and not--as there should be, in a war. But I'm perfectly happy that the trio all survived.
It was unusual that she didn't review and tie up every last element at the end, which will certainly leave fans enough to gnaw over. I'm glad Snape was in fact redeemed, as I had expected. I was always rooting for Harry to end up with Luna, so I was a little disappointed with that, but oh well. I imagine teachers will be upset that the three main characters drop out of school--did they ever go back? And I'm still curious what Harry ended up doing when he grew up, other than being a dad. Did he become an auror? Perhaps time will tell.
Oh, and I loved it when Ron reappears and Hermione starts punching him instead of hugging him. That was great, one of the book's few laugh-out-loud moments. And as a writer, I'll bet anything it was one of those things her character 'just did', surprising Rowling too... I love it when that happens.
grian_ruadh!). And I must say I found it quite satisfactory. It’s nice to see that Rowling really has grown with her audience (and her character) and come up a notch as a writer. Ultimately, it’s about what all serious fantasy is about: death, rebirth, afterlife, survival. Like Earthsea, Narnia, Tolkien, The Dark is Rising, Out of the Silent Planet. I don’t in any way put it in the same quality bracket as those, but it was good. It’s about moving to a more adult understanding of what death really means--both an intolerable loss and a necessary transition; an inevitable change of being, not an end.It was refreshing to break from the usual year-at-Hogwarts structure of the series (amazing how those adventures always managed to coincide exactly with the school year!), into something new and less predictable, though I thought there was a little trouble sustaining the middle. My main complaint about the series in general is that Rowling assembles plot elements in a rather contractor-like fashion; they work, they make you turn the page, but one can too often see the bolts, screws, cantilevers, and labels saying ‘I’m introducing this otherwise extraneous element because I’m going to need it in the third act.’ You can pretty much take a highlighter and mark “this random fact or object will be an important plot point later”. I also got a bit tired of her overuse of breathless leading questions ("Why hadn't Dumbledore told him? Why hadn't he explained? What was Voldemort trying to find? Where was the wand now?" ). My other complaint is the use of slightly-too-convenient elements at some times ("oh look, house else magic is different") but not others (and yes, I know one can always concoct some explanation somehow, but she has a tendency to pull things out of her sleeve that borders on cheating). But overall I thought she handled this one well, and with more sophistication than before. I mostly find this series enjoyable and interesting but not emotionally gripping, but here were several passages I found moving and strong: Harry visiting his parents' grave, Harry digging Dobby's grave, Harry's surrender to Voldemort. Those passages and some others really lifted above. There is a lot of strong, raw, deep emotion in this book, hard truths, painful histories uncovered. The grief of loss, the struggle to love, the pain of prejudice confronted--in this book Rowling goes to a new level, and at last displays some subtlety.
Of course, Harry's surrender to Voldemort is an exact mirror of what Aslan does in the Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe: surrendering to his enemy, being killed, and being reborn. But that's okay. It is handled well, and surrender and rebirth are after all archetypal human themes. For a long time I had figured (I remember saying this to Karl a couple weeks ago) that the link between Harry and Voldemort meant that Harry would have to die in order for V. to die. But I think Rowling found a satisfactory way around it... and I liked the fact that it was ultimately not due to some deus ex machina potion or amulet whipped out of, well, a hat, but simply a choice of whether to go back or move on. Ever since the cover art came out, I had been intrigued by the expression on Harry's face: not of fear or anger, but of hope and acceptance, almost joy, his arm outstretched as if to embrace, to receive. And that turns out to be perfectly expressive of that triumphant moment of surrender.
I was surprised she didn't do the obvious thing and resurrect Dumbledore in phoenix-fashion (and the use of Dumbledore's brother as a red herring prolonged that expectation effectively). Overall this book showed a greater maturity in dealing with death: that it happens and is not overcome even by the most magical objects, but also that it is not truly the end. She very firmly establishes (via the very nature of the Horcruxes) a comforting belief in everlasting souls. (For that matter, is anyone really dead and gone in a world where you can have posthumous conversations with portraits? I'm surprised everyone doesn't have a portrait painted!) Ultimately, here as in other books, the message is that both the villain's and the hero's desire to defeat death is not only impossible, but also not desirable. When Harry sets aside his own desire to escape death and loss, he truly grows up, and truly conquers, as Voldemort (trapped forever in an infant's stage of spiritual development) never can.
Here, and throughout, I've found the attempts to make Harry doubt Dumbledore a bit forced and contrived, and I found the attempt to alienate Ron and Harry particularly unconvincing. But I did like how a once clear-cut good character like Dumbledore was re-examined and complexified, and in the end made neither a saint nor a villain, just a flawed but worthwhile person. Part of growing up is learning that our former heroes--and villains--contain a far richer and more interesting mixture of both good and bad than we once thought. And I like how Harry struggles with his own dark impulses throughout. Overall, the morality of the series has matured, developing themes like corrupt government, racism, and slavery. Ultimately, Harry's victory comes down not to superior firepower, but to moral choice. And what a great line this was: "Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?" After all, that is the very nature of a book!
The actual deaths didn't affect me much--only Hedwig made me briefly sad, poor dear; Lupin and Fred were unfortunate (I always thought Lupin was interesting, and I agree with others' comments--killing off one twin is cruel; better both than only one!). The rest--shrug. I found Harry's _reaction_ to Dobby's death a lot more powerful than the death itself (I always found Dobby rather irritating, if useful). And it would have been interesting for them to try to deal with Snape's awkward redemption if Snape had lived, but he makes a good martyr too. I suppose I can appreciate the realism that there were a fairly large number of 'good guy' casualties, both named and not--as there should be, in a war. But I'm perfectly happy that the trio all survived.
It was unusual that she didn't review and tie up every last element at the end, which will certainly leave fans enough to gnaw over. I'm glad Snape was in fact redeemed, as I had expected. I was always rooting for Harry to end up with Luna, so I was a little disappointed with that, but oh well. I imagine teachers will be upset that the three main characters drop out of school--did they ever go back? And I'm still curious what Harry ended up doing when he grew up, other than being a dad. Did he become an auror? Perhaps time will tell.
Oh, and I loved it when Ron reappears and Hermione starts punching him instead of hugging him. That was great, one of the book's few laugh-out-loud moments. And as a writer, I'll bet anything it was one of those things her character 'just did', surprising Rowling too... I love it when that happens.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2007-07-25 05:13 am (UTC)One thing that really struck me a few days after the fact was that Hermione was a Muggle-born, Ron a pureblood, and Harry kind a mix of the two (an established wizarding father and a Muggle-born mother).
There were lots of other little red herrings pointing to Dumbledore not being dead... this page (http://www.beyondhogwarts.com/harry-potter/topics/dumbledoreisnotdead.html) (which used to be a site on its own) brings up some very good points, including the use up to that point of every other potion mentioned in the speech given by Snape in the first book--except Draught of the Living Death. It's an interesting read, despite the fact that this person was ultimately off the mark and Dumbledore was, in fact, really dead.
no subject
Date: 2007-07-25 12:38 pm (UTC)My two knuts, anyway.