Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows
Jul. 21st, 2007 04:57 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
beccatoriaYes, for I am one of the millions that actually read Harry Potter books on the day of their release.
Okay, so the first thing to say here is probably that I'm extremely tired right now and also, I'm listening to Unchained Melody by the Righteous Brothers, both of which may be severely affecting my common sense. Still - here it is. My after-the-fact insta-review:
It struck me after reading HP6, and felt stronger here, that the Harry Potter books are books about grief. People die and yes, it's a quick way to get a shock and to prove the situation is serious; but these books are about what happens after that. It's a very gentle approach, really. It's about approaching a world full of pain and violence and death, with love.
Much is made of trust in the story - why did Dumbledore trust Snape, why didn't Dumbledore trust Harry, did Dumbledore trust either of them? Did he trust both? But the story's not about trust. The story's about choice, and choosing how to react to Dumbledore, about how you (well, Harry) react because you can't - never could - control Dumbledore's behaviour; only your own. And in the end, Harry approaches it with love.
He approaches his own death with love. And I confess, while I was convinced that it was never Dumbledore's plan to have Harry die (though I thought it would be the Hallows that saved him not his own blood in Voldemort's veins) the moment where he chooses that, chooses to see it through and to love Dumbledore anyway - through all his pain and grief and anger - is deeply affecting.
And that's when you see the core of this children's book - it's about a child walking fearfully, but determinedly, to his own death. About a child learning to deal with death - with the death of loved ones, people dying to save him, causing death, and, finally, dying himself. Reaching peace on the other side of bitter knowledge. Learning the blunt, brutal truths that adults try to hide - and reacting, as young people do, initially with reflexive anger and frustration, but finally with surprising acceptance and grace.
This is a children's book. Anyone who claims otherwise is, I feel, missing the point. The fact that adults also love it might only suggest that there were things we failed to learn growing up, or more likely suggests that they're damn good books. The idea that children's books mustn't interest adults, or have any crossover appeal is absurd. Why give your children books you think aren't interesting?
In all, I guess what I'm saying is, I'm impressed and gratified with the amount of emotional intelligence Rowling credits her readers.
Yesterday at work, someone mentioned that apparently some counselling line had called in extra staff in case there were really shocking deaths in HP that kids couldn't deal with. So...firstly I think that's kind of weird and daft. But I think its probably more symptomatic of parents unable to deal with their kid being upset - which goes back to maybe there's something we're not learning as kids and therefore can't cope with as adults these days comment - than with the books being ZOMG shocking.
A work colleague (who I don't much like) said something tabloidy about how 'it's disgusting' and either it's a 'world gone mad' or if the books really are that horrible they ought to be 'banned'.
I still have no idea if that's true or a rumour anyway.
Maybe it's just me being a geek and therefore more comfortable with extreme connection to fictional media, but it's interesting watching the 'mainstream' try to cope with fictional-character-death-grief. They squirm so amusingly.
But, moving on.
The actual book itself is, like I said, a reasonable conclusion I think. It ties up most of the loose ends. I'd have liked a slightly longer denoument (sp?) rather than the very abrupt ending followed by the 19 year jump to the epilogue. Mainly to tie up such stuff as will Harry go back to Hogwarts for a last year? Who's going to look after Teddy Lupin (I assume his grandmother?)? Who'll be headmaster? What are they going to do about sorting now there's no Sorting Hat? Who was the source Snape mentions to Voldemort in chapter one (I assume confunded Mundungus?)? And, most importantly, what happened to Neville's Grandmother, and how he pulled Godric's Sword from the Sorting Hat when Griphook made off with it?
I suppose none but the last thing really needed to be answered though.
I was very sad to see Fred die, though in retrospect it seems an obvious choice. :(
I think the death I'm most upset about was Tonks to be honest as it seemed sort of...pointless. Which was probably the point. But we didn't get to see how either she or Lupin died and it's just...very sad. Which again, probably the point. But I'm not sure what it does for the story? I mean, Lupin dying is, like Fred, ultimately understandable as a creative decision. But for Tonks to die too - what do we get? Teddy as an orphan? I think I'd understand if Rowling were going for the symbology of Harry vs Teddy and Sirius and Harry vs Harry and Teddy. But like I said, Teddy's fate and Harry's role in his life as his godfather doesn't even get a throwaway line in the ending paragraphs like how Harry'll make sure he's there for his godson if he ever needs him.
I guess what I'm saying is, I liked Tonks and now she's dead and kind of pointlessly. But as I've said a few times now, I guess utter tragedy was the point. Still WAAAAH!
Snape's allegiance shocked me not-at-all. And I still think he's an ass. Okay so I didn't realise that Dumbledore was going to die anyways, but I was pretty sure Snape killed him on his orders to continue working as an inside agent (though I was expecting some twist as to why - like the fact that he was dying already).
But here's why I think Snape's an unutterably gittish git:
He's a death eater. He only repents because someone he, personally, cares about is dead because of him. True he feels real remorse about that, but it's still a very selfish path out of death-eaterhood. The fact that he demonstrated real bravery in helping Dumbledore and that he stayed the course and helped defeat Voldemort means that he's not evil, but it does not make him nice, likeable, or excuse his reprehensible behaviour towards Harry.
This guy was responsible for Harry's parents' deaths. Okay not as responsible as Voldemort but let's not argue semantics. He passed on information that he knew would mean Voldemort would go out and kill someone - and almost certainly murder a baby. As a result, Snape knew that Harry ended up in an abusive home for ten years.
When the kid finally shows up at Hogwarts, Snape - literal saving of him because he's Lily's kid aside - bullies him and treats him like shit. When he's a completely vulnerable eleven year old orphan. Nope, Snape doesn't seem to care that he's a CHILD IN HIS CARE, he'd rather treat him like shit because he can't get over a FIFTEEN YEAR OLD GRUDGE he had with the kid's DAD.
And I just want to grap him by his shirt and say, YOU WON, YOU FUCKER! JAMES IS DEAD! AND NOT ONLY THAT, YOU ENSURED HIS KID HAD A HORRIFIC CHILDHOOD TOO. AND YOU'VE KNOWN THAT THE ENTIRE TIME, AND YOU KNOW THAT DUMBLEDORE WILL KEEP YOUR DIRTY LITTLE SECRET ABOUT WHAT YOU DID THAT MEANT HIS PARENTS DIED, SO WHY NOT TAUNT HIM ABOUT WHAT A SHITTY PERSON HIS DAD WAS?
I want to say, IT'S NOT ALL ABOUT YOU, THIS TIME.
I want to say, YOU'RE A TEACHER. FUCKING ACT LIKE ONE AND STOP BULLYING A LITTLE BOY MERCILESSLY.
So yeah. My CAPSLOCK rage about Snape at the end of HBP really hasn't abated much. I have respect for Snape for doing the right thing and for passing on the information to Harry. I do think that he was brave and that he ultimately did a lot of good. He put his life on the line and ultimately paid that price.
But I think he was a lousy, lousy excuse for a human being and I really hate the "passes" a lot of people seem to hand out to him for his behaviour towards a vulnerable young adult. Or the belief that because he was, in the end, on the "right" side, he shouldn't be condemned for child-cruelty or his motivation for leaving the death eaters and helping Dumbledore/Harry shoudln't be held up to scrutiny. If it had been the child of James Potter and someone else, would he have given a shit?
Not that I think this makes for bad storytelling. Though I do have a bit of a problem with Harry naming his kid Albus Severus in the epilogue mainly because I think that veers a little further from "asshole who did some good stuff," to "tragically misunderstood and was never really an asshole."
But also - unlike the majority of fandom, it seems - I've gathered more respect for Rowling and these books as they've continued and I like to think that she's better and more subtle than that. And I can cope with the naming a little better because it's Harry's second son, and he named his first after his father (who wants to be that his eldest son's name is James Sirius?). And by then, we're talking years and at least one kid later and it seems perhaps a more measured decision on Harry and Ginny's part. A redemptive move for Snape - gratitude for the good he did regardless of the bad - a merciful decision to honour the part of him that deserved honour. And by definition, mercy is never "earned" or an inherent right. It's a function of approaching the universe with love.
But still, I think that Snape = gigantic asshole.
And now on to Dumbledore.
As an overview I was quite impressed with the way Rowling added complexity to the character and seemingly threatened his benevolent, wonderful status without actually tipping over the edge into actually "going there" - or at least not totally "going there".
I still don't quite grok his friendship with Grindelwald. Or rather, I do, it makes sense that stuck at home and frustrated he'd strike up a friendship with a brilliant and idealistic young wizard perhaps to the point of overlooking some of his flaws.
But I do still have trouble instinctively understanding how he could overlook or condone such blatant muggle-dislike. It's maybe...a little too extreme?
That said, the idea that Dumbeldore feared power because of this is interesting. And while he never wanted Harry to die, Dumbledore did keep secrets from him which, as previously established weren't always in the best judgement. So I suppose it's legitimately suspenseful when he tells Snape that the plan IS for Harry to die - and the plan REALLY is for Harry to offer to die.
I actually really did like that Dumbledore tried to use the Resurrection Stone in grief and in fear and in regret and that this was a mistake.
I might have trouble quite seeing clearly Dumbledore's early flirtations with the appeal of power, but I found this one very resonant. Maybe because this time he's the serene, incredible old man we've known through six books, who is not at all power-hungry. Maybe the is a far more effective moral lesson on the way that power as a corrupting force isn't always as simple and straightforward as "but I don't want it for evil." Dumbledore's folly - his temptation - is just as loving and low-key as his character; to see his sister again. To try and put things right. Danger slipping into peaceful and seemingly light-side desires. But by attempting to assume power into yourself in order to achieve these goals you are assuming a corrupting influence into yourself, as Dumbledore did, with his blackened hand.
So Dumbledore isn't the puppet-master of the whole situation that Harry wants him to be. But it doesn't take away his ability or wisdom to puppeteer these sorts of situations either. He's forced to make the best of a less than ideal situation; less than ideal by his own creation.
It's a rather interesting way to remove Dumbledore from the pedestal as all-knowing safe and protective adult (which he retained even after his death because of the clues he'd left, the assumed larger plan) without really destroying his beautifully comforting demeanor and radiant love of Harry and of the world. The message appears to be that despite some of Rita's story being true and despite being fallible and despite compartmentalising information, we were right about him all along anyway. He is still the same person.
(Which is something I think can apply to Snape too. Okay so now we know that he a) handed over the prophecy, b) loved Lily and c) was with the good guys all along, but he's still the same man. I'm not saying that one should always judge a person by their actions and ignore the context of motivation; good lord no. But I am saying that my readings of these two characters in this book is that these historical contexts explain how they became who they are today, they don't change who they are today, which means our pre-HP6&7 impressions of them are largely correct.)
And removing - however gently - Dumbledore from that pedestal of infallibility is important in a series that, the more I think about it, seems to be telling children that they are not stupid or weak or incapable of understanding the world without an adult to interpret it.
And that's about it.
Though Rowling said that we'd learn the significance of Harry having Lily's eyes in this book and I must have missed that? I assume it's that Dumbledore guilt-tripped Snape into protecting Harry by pointing out that physical similarity? Or am I being mind-numbingly dull here?
And she also said that someone would manage to perform magic quite late in life under dire circumstances and I didn't see that either? It must have been cut during editing? Or it was always a rumour to begin with? My bet would have been Filch during the battle, perhaps? Hmm...
And finally, you must have a hell of a lot of clout in the publishing world to get away with having someone scream, "YOU BITCH!" in a kids book. Though the duel between Bellatrix and Molly was da bomb. It's great to be reminded that Molly wasn't just the wife of a member of the Order of the Phoenix.
Anyway. There's that. :)
ETA I'm still vastly and unreasonably upset at the death of Tonks who I always really liked. More so than Lupin even though I liked him just as much. I have decided to cope with this by becoming unreasonably attached to Teddy Lupin to the point of deciding that he usually has blue hair. And was a proper little mischief-making hellion at school. This did not go over well with Andromeda, his grandmother, but Harry kept letting him borrow the Invisibility Cloak during term-time. He may now be my favourite HP character.
Though my newfound love of Molly Weasley has not abated. She should form a club with President Roslin and Sarah-Jane Smith: middle-aged women refusing to be sidelined!
Okay, so the first thing to say here is probably that I'm extremely tired right now and also, I'm listening to Unchained Melody by the Righteous Brothers, both of which may be severely affecting my common sense. Still - here it is. My after-the-fact insta-review:
It struck me after reading HP6, and felt stronger here, that the Harry Potter books are books about grief. People die and yes, it's a quick way to get a shock and to prove the situation is serious; but these books are about what happens after that. It's a very gentle approach, really. It's about approaching a world full of pain and violence and death, with love.
Much is made of trust in the story - why did Dumbledore trust Snape, why didn't Dumbledore trust Harry, did Dumbledore trust either of them? Did he trust both? But the story's not about trust. The story's about choice, and choosing how to react to Dumbledore, about how you (well, Harry) react because you can't - never could - control Dumbledore's behaviour; only your own. And in the end, Harry approaches it with love.
He approaches his own death with love. And I confess, while I was convinced that it was never Dumbledore's plan to have Harry die (though I thought it would be the Hallows that saved him not his own blood in Voldemort's veins) the moment where he chooses that, chooses to see it through and to love Dumbledore anyway - through all his pain and grief and anger - is deeply affecting.
And that's when you see the core of this children's book - it's about a child walking fearfully, but determinedly, to his own death. About a child learning to deal with death - with the death of loved ones, people dying to save him, causing death, and, finally, dying himself. Reaching peace on the other side of bitter knowledge. Learning the blunt, brutal truths that adults try to hide - and reacting, as young people do, initially with reflexive anger and frustration, but finally with surprising acceptance and grace.
This is a children's book. Anyone who claims otherwise is, I feel, missing the point. The fact that adults also love it might only suggest that there were things we failed to learn growing up, or more likely suggests that they're damn good books. The idea that children's books mustn't interest adults, or have any crossover appeal is absurd. Why give your children books you think aren't interesting?
In all, I guess what I'm saying is, I'm impressed and gratified with the amount of emotional intelligence Rowling credits her readers.
Yesterday at work, someone mentioned that apparently some counselling line had called in extra staff in case there were really shocking deaths in HP that kids couldn't deal with. So...firstly I think that's kind of weird and daft. But I think its probably more symptomatic of parents unable to deal with their kid being upset - which goes back to maybe there's something we're not learning as kids and therefore can't cope with as adults these days comment - than with the books being ZOMG shocking.
A work colleague (who I don't much like) said something tabloidy about how 'it's disgusting' and either it's a 'world gone mad' or if the books really are that horrible they ought to be 'banned'.
I still have no idea if that's true or a rumour anyway.
Maybe it's just me being a geek and therefore more comfortable with extreme connection to fictional media, but it's interesting watching the 'mainstream' try to cope with fictional-character-death-grief. They squirm so amusingly.
But, moving on.
The actual book itself is, like I said, a reasonable conclusion I think. It ties up most of the loose ends. I'd have liked a slightly longer denoument (sp?) rather than the very abrupt ending followed by the 19 year jump to the epilogue. Mainly to tie up such stuff as will Harry go back to Hogwarts for a last year? Who's going to look after Teddy Lupin (I assume his grandmother?)? Who'll be headmaster? What are they going to do about sorting now there's no Sorting Hat? Who was the source Snape mentions to Voldemort in chapter one (I assume confunded Mundungus?)? And, most importantly, what happened to Neville's Grandmother, and how he pulled Godric's Sword from the Sorting Hat when Griphook made off with it?
I suppose none but the last thing really needed to be answered though.
I was very sad to see Fred die, though in retrospect it seems an obvious choice. :(
I think the death I'm most upset about was Tonks to be honest as it seemed sort of...pointless. Which was probably the point. But we didn't get to see how either she or Lupin died and it's just...very sad. Which again, probably the point. But I'm not sure what it does for the story? I mean, Lupin dying is, like Fred, ultimately understandable as a creative decision. But for Tonks to die too - what do we get? Teddy as an orphan? I think I'd understand if Rowling were going for the symbology of Harry vs Teddy and Sirius and Harry vs Harry and Teddy. But like I said, Teddy's fate and Harry's role in his life as his godfather doesn't even get a throwaway line in the ending paragraphs like how Harry'll make sure he's there for his godson if he ever needs him.
I guess what I'm saying is, I liked Tonks and now she's dead and kind of pointlessly. But as I've said a few times now, I guess utter tragedy was the point. Still WAAAAH!
Snape's allegiance shocked me not-at-all. And I still think he's an ass. Okay so I didn't realise that Dumbledore was going to die anyways, but I was pretty sure Snape killed him on his orders to continue working as an inside agent (though I was expecting some twist as to why - like the fact that he was dying already).
But here's why I think Snape's an unutterably gittish git:
He's a death eater. He only repents because someone he, personally, cares about is dead because of him. True he feels real remorse about that, but it's still a very selfish path out of death-eaterhood. The fact that he demonstrated real bravery in helping Dumbledore and that he stayed the course and helped defeat Voldemort means that he's not evil, but it does not make him nice, likeable, or excuse his reprehensible behaviour towards Harry.
This guy was responsible for Harry's parents' deaths. Okay not as responsible as Voldemort but let's not argue semantics. He passed on information that he knew would mean Voldemort would go out and kill someone - and almost certainly murder a baby. As a result, Snape knew that Harry ended up in an abusive home for ten years.
When the kid finally shows up at Hogwarts, Snape - literal saving of him because he's Lily's kid aside - bullies him and treats him like shit. When he's a completely vulnerable eleven year old orphan. Nope, Snape doesn't seem to care that he's a CHILD IN HIS CARE, he'd rather treat him like shit because he can't get over a FIFTEEN YEAR OLD GRUDGE he had with the kid's DAD.
And I just want to grap him by his shirt and say, YOU WON, YOU FUCKER! JAMES IS DEAD! AND NOT ONLY THAT, YOU ENSURED HIS KID HAD A HORRIFIC CHILDHOOD TOO. AND YOU'VE KNOWN THAT THE ENTIRE TIME, AND YOU KNOW THAT DUMBLEDORE WILL KEEP YOUR DIRTY LITTLE SECRET ABOUT WHAT YOU DID THAT MEANT HIS PARENTS DIED, SO WHY NOT TAUNT HIM ABOUT WHAT A SHITTY PERSON HIS DAD WAS?
I want to say, IT'S NOT ALL ABOUT YOU, THIS TIME.
I want to say, YOU'RE A TEACHER. FUCKING ACT LIKE ONE AND STOP BULLYING A LITTLE BOY MERCILESSLY.
So yeah. My CAPSLOCK rage about Snape at the end of HBP really hasn't abated much. I have respect for Snape for doing the right thing and for passing on the information to Harry. I do think that he was brave and that he ultimately did a lot of good. He put his life on the line and ultimately paid that price.
But I think he was a lousy, lousy excuse for a human being and I really hate the "passes" a lot of people seem to hand out to him for his behaviour towards a vulnerable young adult. Or the belief that because he was, in the end, on the "right" side, he shouldn't be condemned for child-cruelty or his motivation for leaving the death eaters and helping Dumbledore/Harry shoudln't be held up to scrutiny. If it had been the child of James Potter and someone else, would he have given a shit?
Not that I think this makes for bad storytelling. Though I do have a bit of a problem with Harry naming his kid Albus Severus in the epilogue mainly because I think that veers a little further from "asshole who did some good stuff," to "tragically misunderstood and was never really an asshole."
But also - unlike the majority of fandom, it seems - I've gathered more respect for Rowling and these books as they've continued and I like to think that she's better and more subtle than that. And I can cope with the naming a little better because it's Harry's second son, and he named his first after his father (who wants to be that his eldest son's name is James Sirius?). And by then, we're talking years and at least one kid later and it seems perhaps a more measured decision on Harry and Ginny's part. A redemptive move for Snape - gratitude for the good he did regardless of the bad - a merciful decision to honour the part of him that deserved honour. And by definition, mercy is never "earned" or an inherent right. It's a function of approaching the universe with love.
But still, I think that Snape = gigantic asshole.
And now on to Dumbledore.
As an overview I was quite impressed with the way Rowling added complexity to the character and seemingly threatened his benevolent, wonderful status without actually tipping over the edge into actually "going there" - or at least not totally "going there".
I still don't quite grok his friendship with Grindelwald. Or rather, I do, it makes sense that stuck at home and frustrated he'd strike up a friendship with a brilliant and idealistic young wizard perhaps to the point of overlooking some of his flaws.
But I do still have trouble instinctively understanding how he could overlook or condone such blatant muggle-dislike. It's maybe...a little too extreme?
That said, the idea that Dumbeldore feared power because of this is interesting. And while he never wanted Harry to die, Dumbledore did keep secrets from him which, as previously established weren't always in the best judgement. So I suppose it's legitimately suspenseful when he tells Snape that the plan IS for Harry to die - and the plan REALLY is for Harry to offer to die.
I actually really did like that Dumbledore tried to use the Resurrection Stone in grief and in fear and in regret and that this was a mistake.
I might have trouble quite seeing clearly Dumbledore's early flirtations with the appeal of power, but I found this one very resonant. Maybe because this time he's the serene, incredible old man we've known through six books, who is not at all power-hungry. Maybe the is a far more effective moral lesson on the way that power as a corrupting force isn't always as simple and straightforward as "but I don't want it for evil." Dumbledore's folly - his temptation - is just as loving and low-key as his character; to see his sister again. To try and put things right. Danger slipping into peaceful and seemingly light-side desires. But by attempting to assume power into yourself in order to achieve these goals you are assuming a corrupting influence into yourself, as Dumbledore did, with his blackened hand.
So Dumbledore isn't the puppet-master of the whole situation that Harry wants him to be. But it doesn't take away his ability or wisdom to puppeteer these sorts of situations either. He's forced to make the best of a less than ideal situation; less than ideal by his own creation.
It's a rather interesting way to remove Dumbledore from the pedestal as all-knowing safe and protective adult (which he retained even after his death because of the clues he'd left, the assumed larger plan) without really destroying his beautifully comforting demeanor and radiant love of Harry and of the world. The message appears to be that despite some of Rita's story being true and despite being fallible and despite compartmentalising information, we were right about him all along anyway. He is still the same person.
(Which is something I think can apply to Snape too. Okay so now we know that he a) handed over the prophecy, b) loved Lily and c) was with the good guys all along, but he's still the same man. I'm not saying that one should always judge a person by their actions and ignore the context of motivation; good lord no. But I am saying that my readings of these two characters in this book is that these historical contexts explain how they became who they are today, they don't change who they are today, which means our pre-HP6&7 impressions of them are largely correct.)
And removing - however gently - Dumbledore from that pedestal of infallibility is important in a series that, the more I think about it, seems to be telling children that they are not stupid or weak or incapable of understanding the world without an adult to interpret it.
And that's about it.
Though Rowling said that we'd learn the significance of Harry having Lily's eyes in this book and I must have missed that? I assume it's that Dumbledore guilt-tripped Snape into protecting Harry by pointing out that physical similarity? Or am I being mind-numbingly dull here?
And she also said that someone would manage to perform magic quite late in life under dire circumstances and I didn't see that either? It must have been cut during editing? Or it was always a rumour to begin with? My bet would have been Filch during the battle, perhaps? Hmm...
And finally, you must have a hell of a lot of clout in the publishing world to get away with having someone scream, "YOU BITCH!" in a kids book. Though the duel between Bellatrix and Molly was da bomb. It's great to be reminded that Molly wasn't just the wife of a member of the Order of the Phoenix.
Anyway. There's that. :)
ETA I'm still vastly and unreasonably upset at the death of Tonks who I always really liked. More so than Lupin even though I liked him just as much. I have decided to cope with this by becoming unreasonably attached to Teddy Lupin to the point of deciding that he usually has blue hair. And was a proper little mischief-making hellion at school. This did not go over well with Andromeda, his grandmother, but Harry kept letting him borrow the Invisibility Cloak during term-time. He may now be my favourite HP character.
Though my newfound love of Molly Weasley has not abated. She should form a club with President Roslin and Sarah-Jane Smith: middle-aged women refusing to be sidelined!
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2007-07-22 09:32 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-07-22 11:27 pm (UTC)