Welcome to the Commenting Pixie Party!
Holy cow, you're done? Wow. Well, I won't be back to this thread for awhile, just popped in b/c I saw that there were no comments yet so it's safe. I'll get my copy in a few hours.
Did you like it?
Soylent Green is people!
I'm so exhausted, I've just posted all my preliminary thoughts in comments over at my blog and now I've got to figure out how to get some sleep myself.
Somehow the many wonderful parts are not adding up to the fantastic whole I wanted. Too many choices made that were, to me, the least interesting ones available.
And she pulled her punches on the deaths. Although Dobby's death just absolutely destroyed me. I sobbed like a baby all through that chapter.
OMG! Ponies!
I got home with mine at 12:45am.
"I"ll just read the first chapter," I isaid. "Just the first ...two chapters. And... the Table of Contents. Oka, I'll just read until 2:30. Okay, 3a.m... eh, screw it."
My essential plot guesses were mostly right. It wasn't as "bad" as I'd feared in terms of death toll at all: Any time someone told me "Oh, but its a kids book," I'd remind them, "So are the Chronicles of Narnia, and the death toll in that one is.... universal." So death toll was high and started early (Hedwig!! That one was totally unexpected), but not as close-cutting as I'd feared.
I'd guessed the basic Christ-figure action at the end, but I"d not taken it to its logical conclusion as to the *effect* of sacrifice and the far-reaching protections it can convey.
Love Neville. Hated that Lupin and Tonk's fate was so quick and almost passim that I *missed* it and had to flip back to figure out what had happened.
Epilogue was kind of eh.
Forgot to mention, LOVE that the dust-jacket illustration on the very last book is the very last moment of victory. EXCELLENT.
There are many small pieces of excellence all through, I was definitely carried along. Quite a few loose ends, but what can you expect. In retrospect, there needed to be more Snape. Don't know which reviewer it was that said the ending felt rushed, it turned into the worst of HPB in that respect: penseive memories to show exposition and Dumbledore talking ad infinitum. But how else to reach the end? No way I can think of.
Uff, I'm tired.
I don't even read the things. But I just wanted to say I cana't believe you people are done.
And now Dr. Corndog is making me want some Charlton Heston. Before the NRA.
I'm going to foot-stomp for a couple of minutes, and see if I don't feel differently later in the day.
Hated it.
There, I said it.
After Dumbledore died in Book 6, I consoled myself by saying that at least we'd never have to sit through another "Dumbledore explains it all to you" chapter. And then we did anyway. Pisses me off. It's a damn lazy way to construct a narrative, that's what I say, and that's even before we get to the entire chapter of Snape's memories. That, my friends, was just LAME. Lame, lame, lame. Interesting would have been Snape and Harry interacting in such a way that Snape has to TELL Harry that he loved his mother. Lame is making Harry wander around pointlessly for hundreds of pages and then giving us the important stuff in the form of a static memory afterwards.
Where was the plotting? Where was the pacing? Hundreds of pages in the damn woods, and half the horcruxes don't even get a paragraph for their destruction in the end. Hello! It's not a satisfying quest narrative if all the finding and destroying takes place off camera, so to speak.
And don't even get me started about the total lack of inventiveness on some of the major points. The sword in the frickin' lake? Jeez. Please. The heavy-handedness of Resurrection Stone and King's Cross and "I died to protect all of them"? Gah!
And another thing -- what Jody said on her blog. The deaths were copious and all that, but Dobby? Hedwig? Lupin? Sure did seem easier to kill off the creatures and the contaminated-by-blood types, didn't it? Killing off Fred was a cheat, since Percy stepped in at just that moment to take Fred's place. (Change of heart! Just at that moment! Who'd of thunk!)
I hated how little we got to see of the most interesting characters. I hated that Ginny spent the entire book sidelined. I hate that Lucious Malfoy apparently never got what was coming to him.
Mostly, I hate the nagging sense that this would have been a much meatier, more fascinating read if, say Russell Arben Fox had written it. Feh.
All right. Maybe I'll think of things I liked about the book in a bit. There must have been some -- I did read the book in one breathless sitting.
You go, Phantom!
I manage to like the book in spite of agreeing with absolutely every single point you're making. Especially about the penseive and the Dumbledore-tells-all. Ick. Ick. ICK.
The very worst parts of HBP. Doing the very most crucial things. Sigh.
I was trying to find a way to say that I thought Rowling very heavy-handedly threw her hand in the Dawkins ring with that whole "just because it's all in your mind doesn't mean it's not real" bit, but I couldn't quite figure out how. We've known for books and books that her worldview included an afterlife, but this one suddenly introduced Christian elements that didn't deserve or need to be there.
The thing is, I was carried along by all the small clevernesses. But I'm still left with the sense that all the small pleasures (and some of them were very great for me) did not manage to redeem the whole.
Then again, I've still only slept for 45 minutes.
Of all the things I would still want to know, the epilogue answered precisely two of them. And Albus Severus irritates me more and more, every second I contemplate him.
Sigh. I actually enjoyed the book, I read it straight through after all and was never once tempted to skip ahead. But it's flawed in some fundamental ways that feel, well, very disappointing.
Oh, wait, I forgot the thing I hated most: Tonks left her NEWBORN BABY with her mother to come fight with the Order? Le bullshit. What did she do, squirt milk all over them before she died?
And, oh yeah on Albus Severus, Jody. I really, really needed to see Harry coming to terms with this revelation before I'd buy that one.
I just hope that James's middle name is Fred.
What happened to Luna? George? Any of the other characters we cared about in the epilogue? Hello? Who is the new headmaster? DADA teacher? Anything?
I also wanted to hurt her for the Horcrux working exactly like the ring did in LotR. Ooooooh, wearing it too long makes you EEVIL.
I also wished we had a little less woods and a little more Horcrux, because suddenly poof, they're all gone. Since all her books are expositiony, and since she's pushed pensieves all the time, I'm not surprised, nor am I bothered by this. (Also, I read a lot of early detective stories that ended like that, and I remember them fondly.)
Christian elements were a little heavy, Snape story was a little weak, though I rather liked the Dumbledore backstory. Missed Ginny and Luna.
That said, I still liked the book. I'm easy.
OK, so the Albus Severus thing? That was in the spoiled Epilogue I read, so I guess it wasn't a fake.
I like Corndog's comment very, very much.
Sorry you didn't enjoy it, Phantom! The WaPo has an article today on HP fanfic--you of all people could certainly write an ending that would be worthy! 
And what was that "Krum comes back" crap? I mean, sure, he was there, and mentioned the symbol, but it could have been any random character who said that -- it can't be restricted to Durmstrang, the knowledge of the symbol's relationship with, uh, whatshisname.
Like Wolfa, I'm easy (especially when I am reading between 12 and 3 in the morning), so it was entertaining, but I didn't like it either:
Lupin, Tonks, and Fred's deaths all felt stupidly rushed.
The epilogue was sappier than anything I would have imagined Rowling writing. I actually saw a transcription of the first page of it, as I was battling with myself on whether to avoid the spoilers -- and I dismissed it out of hand as someone's fanfic. And ditto to your read on that, Phantom and Jody.
It felt as though despite JKR's continued statements that she can't pull punches, she made herself a list of things that the really vocal fans (the ones who are buying all the HP merchandise) would demand, and set about fulfilling their requirements.
And I would rather have had this book in two installments.
Oh yes, and what was with Harry being able to cast all those Imperius curses so easily and so quickly (I'm rereading the Gringotts scenes). I thought that that curse required a lot of power and focus, and I have a hard time believing that he could just flick his wand and cast it without any resistance from the victims.
I don't read these books, can't help it, just don't like quest novels. But I love reading these spoilers.
Yeah Jane, the Cruciatus and Imperius curses that just flew so easily from him? I dunno if that was to show the increasing power of Voldemort in him or what, but it was a bit weird.
I just posted about it over at my place (not much to see there yet, as I'm trying not to reveal too much to people who haven't finished) but I'm of two minds on this book. I enjoyed it, but on the same hand I felt that a lot of it was rushed and glossed over.
I was glad not to see Harry die (not permanently -- what is UP with that? Everyone else stays dead, but Harry pulls a rabbit out of his ass, and manages to survive?!?!) but in the same vein, I know how crushed I would have been had he actually snuffed it.
There was far too much wandering around the woods, and far too little explanation behind some of the motivations of the character. Like a lot of you, I would have rather had Harry *discover* some of the things that he ended up seeing in the Pensieve during his journey, rather than just have it fall into his lap and done up with a neat bow.
That being said, I did enjoy it, and I'm sad to see it all end.
I just finished. It was good, but I feel like there were loose ends. I thought we were promised no loose ends and no more books. And if dropping the snitch in the woods (and Harry specifically talking to Dumbledore about it) doesn't count as a way to send the second generation on an adventure...
Would it be crass to say it didn't feel detailed enough? Like what's Umbridge's punishment. And Draco Malfoy feels too important in the epilogue, yet with a tantalizing lack of detail.
I will say that I did really like what happened with Ron's character throughout. And the non-schoolyear narrative ended up being a diverting shift (I wasn't expecting to feel that way at all). Though I concur with people who feel that there was a bit too much forest and not enough Horcrux.
I have a few more thoughts at my place, too (more as the day goes on, I suppose).
The ending was so rushed. The epilogue was pointless, too. She may as well have just written "and they all lived happily ever after" for all the resolution it provided. I thought all the houses sitting together after the battle might have foreshadowed some restructuring at Hogwarts, but she didn't even mention anything other than Neville. I didn't mind the actual pre-epilogue ending, though, even if it is was all Christ/Narnia-y.
I hated the LoTR-ish locket, too, and how easy the imperius curses were.
I was quite satisfied until I came here and read comments and started thinking about it... I think the key is not to think too hard. It was perfectly enjoyable that way.
I haven't read any of the books, though I did see one of the movies, minus sound, on a plane trip a few years ago. What amazes me is the thought of the hundreds? thousands? could it be millions? of people around the world all reading the same thing last night. Kinda makes my head want to explode. But in a good way.
Okay, picking up a child at camp, hitting a curb and hearing all the air in my tire go out with a whoosh and a trip to the tire place later, I'm here, and I've finished.
I sort of loved it, although I feel embarrassed to say so in this crowd.
Here are a few of the things I loved:
Snape is Good!
Neville Rocks!
Molly Weasley got into the battle!
Mother Love rules!
Seriously, for all the Christian imagery there is a ton of stuff about the sacrificial love of mothers, the ones we like and the ones we don't, and that's not Christian at all.
Moments that got to me:
Hedwig!!
Hagrid falling off the motorbike--I thought he was a goner, too, and that the deaths were going to come fast and furious.
Dobby's death, which is weird because like Ron and Sirius, I have never liked the house elves.I was relieved when Kreacher re-appeared at the end, and that is screwy indeed.
About Snape and the memories:
I think she stranded herself in pensieve-land by needing it to be secret that Snape was good. And it really needed to be a secret. Although I never believed he was really bad, not for a minute. (Maybe half a minute after he killed Dumbledore.)
On the other hand, I hated some of the things mentioned above:
*The absolute writing-off of Tonks and Lupin, and her choice to come to the battle in the first place
*Ginny's lack of importance in the book and the battle--after the last book, I was really expecting something from her, not just mentions of what she did "off-screen"
I'm sure I'll think of more.
I loved it. Yeah, they were in the woods a really long time, and yeah the ending seemed rushed, but I don't care. I hung on every word, I cheered and cried, and I loved it. I'm so sad the books are over, but I'm very happy with how it ended. Call me simplistic, but I loved it.
Okay, I finished it today. I didn't skip to the end even once - although there were plenty of moments I could have. While I was glad that Snape was good and that Dumbledore wasn't as beatific as he seemed, there was so much that bothered me.
Like others mentioned, the time in the woods, the heavy-handed Christian/Narnia references, the pendant that makes its wearers EEEVIL, and the heavy-handed exposition. I also loathed the way JKR mangled Hermoine's character in this last installment.
Although, I admit I cheered when Ron left because the whining was starting to make want to summon the Death Eaters myself.
I want to know what happened afterward. What does Harry do? Wouldn't the kids be aware that daddy was Teh Wizarding Savior? Don't the Potters want to recognize the Weasleys at all in the names? Why wasn't the oldest child named Fred? That would make more sense than James then Albus Severus followed by Lily.
I read HP for the diversion of settling into a parallel world of wonders. This book with its heavy use of pensieve and Dumbledore made me feel very distant from the action.
Done. My husband is a good,good man.
The movie is going to be pretty lame, comparatively with all that wandering around aimlessly in the woods.
All in all, disappointed. The Snape thing didn't bother me so much, but the wandering around the woods and the Dumbledore explains all even though he is dead thing upset me. I would have been less upset to find out that he hadn't really died than that whole train station choice scene.
I thought the epilogue was sappy at best.
I loved Neville, and wished he had gotten more billing. I think there should have been more Hogwarts. Ginny got short changed.
And I quite honestly think Harry should have died.
Now I have to go re-read it at a slower pace and catch the stuff I missed the first time.
I take back the Harry should have dies thing based on a comment by Jody. It is a children's lit book, and as a tween his death would have sent me over the edge. But then I think the killing of Voldermort should have been handled differently.
Thinking about it more, I really wished she'd cut 2/3 of the wandering in the woods, and used that space for showing us what was going on at Hogwarts. Too many much-loved characters got short shrift this way, with us having to follow Harry's every footstep.
Sarah, I was just complaining (in a non-spoilerish way) to my husband that if the 784 pages had been jam-packed with detail and action, I would have happily forgiven all the loose ends that weren't tied up. I'd think, well, there can't be room for everything. But I thought there was plenty of dead space (ahem, so to speak) here that could have been pruned to give us more of the details that have so absorbed us all these years.
Why was the ring so well protected with all those curses - but the other horcruxes were so easy to get to? I was totally expecting to see them having to work hard to get to them all, fighting curses, and using tons of magic.
Hated that Lupin died - particularly because I watched azkaban again yesterday, and it reminded me of how much I loved him.
Hated hated hated the epilogue. Hated the romance or whatever between hermoine and ron - there was nothing there to attract the two of them at all. And it made me ill that she ended up married to him with tons of kids - at the very least, she should have been a professor at Hogwarts.
I was so glad that Snape was good. But I agree, I wish he could have told Harry some of this on his own.
If she is gearing to have the kids (idiotic names, all of them) have their own series, I will be really disinterested. Part of what was so psychologically interesting about Harry was that he lived through such maltreatment at the hands of the Dursleys, and still ended up a decent person. I'm far less interested in his descendents.
I would have liked the book far more without the epilogue - it really tainted it for me.
Done here too finally. I hated it. I loved it. I felt everything in between. I feel like I just got dumped by the hottest boyfriend I've ever had.
Hedwig was heartbreaking! And I don't know who on earth JK Rowling was talking about in the interviews where she said "2 main characters died"...I feel like a LOT more than two were gone....who did she consider the main ones??
Need sleep.
I meant to say too that I was super annoyed, while reading it, at the wedding. I just wanted to get into the search. I think it might have been more interesting had it come later - more tense seeing them try to come back for it. And why, if it was so easy to be at George's, did they need to take off for the woods?
All my complaints aside, was I the only one who had to keep taking sobbing breaks? Similar to Kai, I felt bereft without the series. The ending of it all feels like such a loss. Even since having finished reading it, I keep getting urges to cry.
When's the next movie coming out? Or better yet, anyone have a harry potter patch? Or some sort of replacement obsession?
Despite agreeing with almost all the criticisms, I still think I liked it.
The deaths, almost all of them, were purposeless -- in the sense that either we did not see what the dead accomplished while dying, or they were smote down senselessly in a crossfire. It was so pervasive that I rather think it was intentional. Dying a noble death is all well and good, but war is stupid and senseless.
I don't mind the pensieve as a device, in general. It's been used so heavily by now as a flashback device, and it has been established that being in it can be so real that it *deeply* emotionally affects the person experiencing the saved memory. I do wish there had been some way Snape could have given some of that information to Harry himself, but once she was committed to keeping the "Snape is loyal" information until that late in the game, it was pretty much a given that we'd not get that. The best I can say in JKRs defense is that given how the Pensieve works, it appears that Snape consciously gave Harry *more* than he absolutely needed to -- he didn't just give harry the "You're a Horcrux, you have to die," he gave him the "and by the way, here's why I did what I did."
I was sure Neville was going to die. Usually the "Hapless dork turns noble" story winds up with the hapless dupe dead in some brave, foolhardy, and ultimately useless act. Glad to be wrong. I was also sure a Weasley twin was going to die - it just had to happen. A Weasley had to bite it, and the twins have the most tragic potential.
OK, I'm going to comment without reading anyone else's comments.
First, I really liked it. I thought it was exciting and fun. Ditching the structure of the Hogwarts school year was positively liberating.
The deaths, however, lacked emotional impact. OK, I felt a little "aw" when Dobby sacrificed himself, but Fred, Lupin, Tonks, etc. all felt like total after-thoughts. No impact at all. Oh yeah, so they're dead. Big deal.
The epilogue was meh, and I couldn't quite figure out which kids were attached to which parental couple.
"Tonks left her NEWBORN BABY with her mother to come fight with the Order? Le bullshit. What did she do, squirt milk all over them before she died?"
BWAHAHAHAHAHA!
What you said.
re: the Tonks thing...
I was thinking that in some ways Tonks reminded me of .... that writer who keeps writing about how she luuurrrrves her husband so and her kids are okay but if she had to save only one person from a burning house it'd be her hubby.........
Tonks pined and pined for Lupin. She's painted as not as mature in many ways as Lily Potter was. And its a fact of life that, despite all the mother-love themes throughout the series, that not ever mother puts her child before all else. Harry wonders several times about whether other mothers would have done what his did -- maybe Tonks is there as the answer to that question.
Plus, c'mon. First baby, married to an emotionally-strangled werewolf in a time of war? That's just got PPD written all over it, 
well, I do know at least one mom of my acquaintance (much like Tonks in many ways) who would totally have left her newborn to be in the thick of it. That did give me pause, but not as much as for some of you. And, yes, I want Hermione teaching at Hogwarts in the epilogue, not just Neville. (Unless she's the Minister of Magic). At least Molly Weasley really got into it this time, though--and MacGonagall. Loved it when she said Snape had "done a bunk." Harry burying Dobby was touching, and I did cry more than once, but I also laughed out loud a few times. I'm satisfied, despite the too-exposition-y stuff. And the epilogue was too little, too fast--or on the other hand, too much. (Was anyone else doing math to figure out how young everyone had their kids? Not too terribly, but still...)
I haven't seen any of the movies since #2. Maybe I'll watch them now, just to stay in the world a little longer. Or maybe not. Might be time to move on.
I did finally think of something that I really liked about the book: the revelation that Petunia had once written Dumbledore a letter begging him to let her attend Hogwarts! That seemed like a poignant way to sum up everything that is deeply troubling about the tension between Muggles and the wizard/witch world.
I think the Pensieve as a device ultimately undermined the books -- it made it too easy to use backstory as a way of furthering the plot, and ended up siphoning off a lot of emotional potential from the series. I wouldn't have quibbled with occasional use of it (or some other backstory device -- though I do think the Pensieve was genius in that it was a perfect device for use in a book for children, for whom experiments with point of view might have been a bit much), but it did too much of the emotional heavy lifting in the end.
I did cry when Dobby died, but I was more moved by the interrogation of the Muggle-born witch at the Ministry. That was chilling.
Back to Tonks: wasn't that baby like a week old or something? I dunno, folks: she'd be dripping with milk and still bleeding, for pity's sake.
Whew! I just finished it. Thought I was going to Avada Kedavra my mailman when he finally showed up!
Neville's courage made me cry, as did Fred and Dobby's deaths and George losing an ear. I agree that Hermione certainly should be a professor at Hogwarts, at the very least. The idea of Hagrid being forced to carry Harry's dead body also had me weeping, and George's first jokes about losing his ear made me laugh out loud....
But yes, LOTS of searching, then anticlimactic discoveries. The battle scene at Hogwarts-- I felt so happy to be back there, despite the impending carnage! And the epilogue certainly seemed forced-- if a new series shows up in a few years, I certainly won't be there either.
More thoughts possible later, but for now I'm off to read more reactions!
I thought Lupin came to Bill & Fleur's before all the planning was done to get into the Lestrange vault, which gives the baby at least a month.
How did Neville get the sword back? If Harry was the rightful owner (I'm not sure, actually, that he was -- if not, I'll imagine something magic at Hogwarts brought it back), then he gave it away, and I can't see the goblin handing it to Neville just this once.
It strikes me as cruel to decide to repeat the child abandoned at birth plotline with Lupin's child. Sure, he'll grow up loved, but it doesn't sound like Harry adopted him. Afterthoughts are a very good description of the deaths of Tonks and Lupin, as someone said above.
And I did think the woods scenes would never end. When she would remind us of holidays or months to remind us how long it took, it always seems off-key. It seemed like it should have been 2 weeks tops, but it must have been many months? How long did that take--did anyone keep the timeline in their head better than me? why so long?
Several hours of digesting later, I was struck at how much the characters were warriors. I've spent most of the series marveling at their parallel universe tucked harmoniously into ours. It seemed amazing how ready the good guys were to battle--I'm thinking especially of Mrs. Weasley here. It was almost as if the PTA were composed of sharp-shooters. OK--that may be a bad analogy. It just altered my perceptions.
And I have to admit I am glad the ending was predictably happy and sappy.
Sara, you're thinking of Ayelet Waldman, Michael Chabon's wife, who said similar things in an essay and also on Oprah.
I do think that Tonks and Lupin were a distorted mirror image of the Potters, in that they did not feel the same absolute parental devotion that led Lily to make the ultimate sacrifice-- after all, isn't that why her protection was so potent? Isn't it like the Unforgiveable Curses, where you really have to mean it for it to work? Tonks and Lupin chose to fight "for the greater good" over protecting their child-- whether or not it was the most noble choice is up to us, I guess, but I think JKR was pretty clear. In the end, Narcissa Malfoy was willing to protect her child as her ultimate loyalty more than Tonks and Lupin, which I thought was interesting.
Also, if Tonks is truly an Animagus, I think she would have handled the bleeding/breastmilk issue somehow .
I did find the heavenly King's Cross scene to be a little too much telling and not showing, but by then I was so caught up I didn't care!
The more I think about the epilogue, the more it bugs me. We didn't find out what any of the characters were doing, other than Neville. Well, other than having babies, anyway. And while I don't want to belittle the career of being a mother in the least, it felt like a weirdly conservative closing scene. What happened to Harry's plans of becoming an Auror? Did Ron go to work in the Ministry of Magic like his father?
It's really odd; as though Voldemort's death somehow vanquished ALL evil, everywhere, and now everyone is so good and happy that they've entirely forgotten that there ever was a Dark Lord. And Voldemort was terrible, yes -- but I don't believe for a nanosecond that his death somehow solved everything.
I have to say that when I read "Teddy Remus," I thought, "Teddy Ruxpin."
Songbird, that makes two of us. I'm glad I'm not the only one.
Jane, you have a point. I was also a little annoyed by the epilogue's focus on children, but even more, it leaves the world open for more books in a way that the last chapter -- or a different epilogue -- would not have done.
I forget who asked it, but yes, I figured out everyone's age when they had kids. Every character in the books seems to have their first kid at around 21, which is odd.
I have now managed to reread it, and despite all my complaints about plotting and pacing and LotR knockoffing, I *still* enjoyed the book.
I'm so glad you put this post up PS. I remember the last one fondly, and I'm going to be coming back here often.
I guess I should put myself in the 'agree with all the flaws but still loved it because I'm a sucker for the story' crowd. I am sad that it's over, but I don't want anything to do with those kids (ask me again when the 'Harry Potter Generation 2' books come out).
But honesty, my main problem here is the same one I had with the last book. I know that Hermione is not the lead character of the book, but she - and most of the other female characters - are simply way too 2D. Tonks is a good example, but as someone mentioned earlier, Hermione is one of the great wizarding minds of her generation, and we don't get to find out what she's doing after graduation? For that matter, did they graduate? And yet we know who the professor of herbology is. Feh.
Someone else already mentioned it as well, but the Hogwarts crew really got the shaft. Maybe it would have been too school-centered, but I would have loved a chapter or two about the underground fight - forcing kids to torture folks in detention - that would have been powerful. And Ginny. She'll be Harry's wife for crying out loud, and we no almost nothing about her.
Still, I read it all in one sitting and I might read it again. I really will miss those kids.
Songbird, I thought Teddy Ruxpin, too.
I guess I'm easy (or not critical enough) because most of the stuff mentioned here didn't bother me. The Pensieve stuff? Okay. Harry dying and coming back? Seemed like a typical "near death" experience.
I hated that Tonks and Lupin died, but I can't think of any main characters who I wouldn't have hated dying.
The epilogue was lame, but they usually are, and yes she could've put more details in it.
But mostly right this minute my response is "whew". I'm exhausted and I didn't stay up all night reading!
Just finished. Agree with the complaints about the horrible pacing. Loved Kreacher. Loved Hermione. Hated the epilog. Hated the Dumbledore exposition and the pensieve. Would it have killed her to have had Snape and HP actually have a moment?
But that said, I enjoyed reading the book very much.
Hey everyone,
Phantom Scribbler i've read your blog for a long time but this is my first post. Hi! I've really enjoy your blog. I figure this is a good thread to join the pixie party with
When I finished, I literally jumped up and down because I was so happy with it. I think that's because I inhaled the book more than I read it. And because they stayed alive, and, well... I'm a sucker for a happy ending.
A few thoughts:
The wandering around the woods was long, but in JKR's defense, it had to take a long time for them to figure out what they had to do. Figuring it out couldn't be easy. Also, I would have loved to have known what was going on at Hogwarts, but by staying just with Harry and the others, as she's done the whole time, we were just as isolated as they were.
The epilogue: I admit... I liked it, but I'm a huge sap. I agree that it's weird that we don't know what they're doing, but I assume it's being an Auror or working at the Ministry - I mean it's either that at Hogwarts and they're clearly not there. Where else would they work other than the Ministry? Has to be there.
For some reason, the pensieve has never bothered me. I agree that Harry talking with Snape would have been powerful too but... that would be so out of character for Snape, wouldn't it? I mean giving him the memories is one thing, but for Snape to actually express himself like that? That would have been really jarring.
I liked the comment that all the randomness of the deaths made it more like a war. And I liked the comparison of all the Moms in the book. Both Lupin and Tonks were ready to walk away from their child - hadn't realized that before reading the comments.
Oh- and wasn't Harry's curses at Gringotts easier because he was using The Elder Wand without knowing it ? I thought he realized at the end that he had had it all along b/c it had been Draco's wand.. cause... Draco had taken it? (I have to admit I'm a bit confused on that part.)
What would you guys have done differently with Hermione?
OK, I'll stop babbling for now LOVED it!
*rolls eyes* I've really enjoy your blog was obviously supposed to be I really enjoy your blog... I'm tired! lol
Just to stick up for tonks a bit. Let's say that the worst despot or most despotic regime had come to take over your town - let's say it is the head of Burma - or the janjaweed that is genociding Darfurians - or Hitler. You know that your world, your freedom, everything you hold dear and the lives of everyone you know are threatened - what would you do? If everyone you knew was joining in to fight - would you stay home with your baby? Or would you feel like your baby might be better off in the long run if you fought?
And Snape's talking to Harry as being out of character is exactly why I would have liked it. Although I liked being able to "see" him through the pensieve, I would really have liked to have seen him change before me. What would an emotionally vulnerable Snape look like? What would it take for him to break down and share himself with Harry? How would he go about it? How would he frame things? Psychologically, that would be really interesting to me. I would have liked to have seen that Snape. And, frankly, I'd like to see that Alan Rickman as Snape. Anything to give Rickman more to do.
Is there university in the wizarding world? An Oxwarts? A Hogbridge? I'd like to have seen Hermoine go back, graduate, get a few advanced degrees, tour Europe, have a sexual awakening - see a few more men than Krum and Ron, maybe explore relationships with women, publish some articles in some wizarding journals, invent some things (a 13th use for dragon's blood? Or ways to do those things that don't hurt dragons?), create a union for house elves, maybe start a feminism movement for witches, start a blog, write the great British novel, and then - after she had a lot of experiences, then maybe find a partner and have or adopt a kid or two, while teaching at Hogwarts (where she starts a child care co-op) or maybe she could be a doctor at mundungos.
I'm about halfway through a second read and I like it better the 2nd time. There was a lot to ingest reading it so quickly. But the wandering is still a bit much.
I really liked the beginning, both times. I thought it was very well done. I also really liked the scenes in Sirius's house. And the Ministry scenes.
The Tonks thing didn't bother me as much, there are a lot of people who would see sacrificing for the greater good more important that staying with their child. Especially if the child was safe and with someone who would do right by the child as it grew up.
One quick thought about having children young: these wizards and witches have just been through a war that has diminished their population significantly. Whether or not there is a conscious campaign to reproduce, it's a natural impulse to engage in life-giving acts after there has been so much death. I have no problem with that part. And certainly they are not the pampered young people the average American college junior or senior would be.
I'll come back and read more later.
I couldn't stop thinking about this, and I have more thoughts too, but not much time--just one thing now. I find it amazing (and kind of wonderful) that Harry got through the whole thing without ever uttering a killing curse. I guess at the very end he knew he wouldn't have to, but still.
Well, another thing, too. I don't think Snape could talk to Harry face to face. Even at the end I don't think he could've put aside his enmity towards Harry (and vice versa) long enough to have had the conversation they needed to have. Maybe she could've written it differently. I kept expecting Snape to show up somewhere to help the order if he really was still on their side. And I guess he did by not punishing Ginny et al. too severely. But the way it was constructed I just don't think that conversation would've worked. And given that most of what Harry knew about Snape came through the pensieve, it sort of made sense to me.
I think Snape's insistence to Dumbledore that no one ever know he's specifically helping Harry was true to character, and made it clear why we couldn't have a Snape/Harry scene.
Still, I'd've liked to have seen a bit more from him.
Okay, this morning finally willing to jump in and talk spoilers.
I agree with most of the criticisms, especially on the useless epilogue and the lack of a Fred, but I liked it anyway. I think I was so frustrated with book 6 that my standards were lower. I was into the wandlore. And it's a kid's book after all, so the Gandalf-tells-all was inevitable--I just thought it was going to be stored pensieve memories.
Overall, I think the book suffered when she made the decision to isolate Our Trio. She got herself trapped by limiting her perspective to what Harry's doing and hearing about. The device of the scar connection lets us in on Voldemort's side, but she didn't have a way of cutting to Hogwarts and w/o Hogwarts and the academic calendar--which has always provided ready-made structure and believable deus-ex-machinae--she just got lost. So the wandering-in-the-woods dragged on b/c she isolated them and they've never actually functioned independently of the school and she still had a school year to kill.
When we finally get back to Hogwarts it turns out Neville has been having much more exciting times than Our Trio--if she'd figured out a way of cross-cutting to that it would have been a much better book. I give her points for the Phineas Nigellus portrait, though.
I also appreciated having some real actual dirt turn up on Dumbledore.
She shied away from the Holocaust stuff so that I didn't really believe how much was supposedly at stake--which is strange b/c she was so willing to push Umbridge to the fascistic limit.
I was hoping that the leaking memories would be Dumbledore's.
All we really needed to know about Snape was the connection to Lily's patronus.
And yet I thought the world was more complete and full than in book 6, and I got into the Last Battle/Armageddon at the end. I disagree w/folks who thought it came out of nowhere. She's British! There are 7 Narnia books, too. The series was ALWAYS going to end that way.
Yacking out his memories to Harry at the end was a HUGE gesture from Snape. I can't imagine him conversing with Harry, even in a "deathbed" moment. And keeping the double-agency secret, really secret, meant everything not only to the plot but to the character.
Frustrating.
Sheila-- exactly -- she's British, raised on British fantasy. And also, far more than most Americans of the same age, raised on stories of WWII that include real privation, real death, and real Resistance.
Rereading the conclusion another time has me agreeing with Rev Dr. Mom that there was no way that Snape would ever have revealed any of that to Harry in person. It was not in his nature, neither in the persona that he had constructed for himself nor part of his love for Lily. His love for Lily in no way extended to her child, who was to him more Potter than her. Any in-person confession of all of that would have felt about as hackneyd as if he'd choked out "Rosebud....." before dying.
I am, however, more dissatisfied with the epilogue on my third reading of it. So much I want to know, and all it gives us is the names of kids. Bah.
What I wanted to know: Did everyone have to repeat a year at Hogwarts? None of the 5th or 7th years could have taken OWLs or NEWTs. Did they give kids points for experience learned outside of school? Does slaying Nagini mean an A on a DADA NEWT? Is a NEWT enough to become a professor, or is there any postsecondary education? Do Hogwarts professors live in? Can they be married? What do their spouses do? Can they live off campus?
What do wizarding moms of small children do about work? She set up a world where as far as I can tell, all children are homeschooled to age 11. Are there wizard preschools? Does the Ministry of Magic have on-site daycare? Why can't they use the Floo network to send them to primary schools to meet other young witch/wizards?
For those of you who enjoy Teh Snark, this totally mean-spirited and very funny page-by-page review. Via the comments in Making Light.
Also, on the Snape-could-never-have-told-Harry issue, whatever, fine. But there were still other ways that this could have been plotted such that Harry would have had to actively pursue this information AND would have had a chance to interact with Snape -- even briefly -- after learning it. After all the Snape-is-a-git angst we have been through in the past six books, it was Teh Extremely Lame to wrap that up in such a static fashion and in such a way that we never get to see Harry's worldview completely rocked by it. I'm sorry, but I'm not buying the idea that he matured SO MUCH on that endless walk through the woods that he could just accept that Snape and Lily had been childhood BFF without even twitching.
Sara, I was wondering about the permitted personal lives of Hogwarts teachers myself.
Ideas I'm throwing out there without having read most of the comments:
1. Harry should have found out that Lily and Snape were childhood friends by finding a hidden trove of Lily's photos and/or letters after the Dursleys left the house. Maybe he finds a hidden cache under the stairs, since it's the first time he's gone back there since he went to Hogwarts, and Petunia hid everything she kept of Lily's in the same space she "hid" Harry. So it's Petunia's letters from Lily at school, Petunia's photos of she and Lily, and Snape is part of them. It plants the first seed of realization in Harry's mind: Maybe Dumbledore was right to trust Snape after all. Maybe there's a reason to trust Snape.
2. Harry should have figured out that he was the last Horcrux without Dumbledore. He should have remembered on his own there was an extra one, he should have figured it out from Hermione's research on what a Horcrux does, through his renewed mental contact with Voldemort, and then he makes the choice to sacrifice himself NOT because Dumbledore tells him via Snape (which, BTW, Snape would never have had a chance to do if Harry hadn't "happened" to go to the Shack -- Rowling completely fouled up that piece of plotting, part of her overall problem with Snape in the last book), but because he THINKS that's the solution. Plenty of chances to explore further Harry coming into his own powers, and debate about what the right course of action should be.
3. That usefully gets rid of some of the "work" the Penseive memories have to do. Which is all to the good.
4. Snape needed to do more work. If you're going to make Snape central, and Rowling always has wanted to do that, you have to have Snape grow and change, too. And let's face it, he doesn't do much growth. He turns against Voldemort because Voldy kills Lily, but that's the extent of how love changes him. Better to kill Dumbledore in the middle of book 6 as part of Voldemort's rise to power, trap Harry at Hogwarts under Snape's "control" which is really his protection, and give Snape a chance to interact with Harry for the first time not via Dumbledore. Give Snape a chance to come to love Lily through her son. Let Harry do some of the Horcrux work without Dumbledore, maybe via Snape without knowing about it. It makes Book 6 more interesting, lets Book 7 be more of the forest/chase sequence it turned into, and actually shows us what Rowling ends up only telling: that Snape was a central figure, too.
5. Even if it's too late to change book 6, do SOMETHING with Snape in book 7. He has nothing to do. It's a huge, gaping problem, and Rowling highlights that in her fan-fic epilogue. Albus Severus my ass. Severus never got the chance to become what Rowling clearly wanted him to be.
I hesitate to bring up LOTR, because I find the parallels mostly unuseful, but Tolkein re-wrote the whole sequence, start to finish, multiple times before it was published. This gave him, and his editors, a chance to see that major, serious changes in plot and pacing needed fixing. I really wouldn't want HP to have come out in seven books all at once, I've loved the serial releases, but I would bet money that, if Rowling hadn't already released them before she finished writing them, if her editor wasn't working with a billion-dollar author by the time they came to the end-game, there would have been serious alterations to the plot to remove some of the rushed exposition-laden ending that book 7 turned out to be.
Fact is, I didn't mind the forest stuff. I can't say the pacing was bad because I stayed up all night in a state of nervous exhaustion, wanting to find out what happened next. I don't even have complaints about all the remaining Horcruxes being smashed in a fast ending, because given what they meant to Voldemort, I think that can work.
I think the problem with Book 7 is a Snape problem, and it started back in Book 6.
I love you, Jody. I'm just saying.
Jody's comments For The Win!
I did think it was interesting how many of the adult characters struggled with love in this one-- Snape and Lupin of course, but it seemed like only the Weasleys and their kids really had a good grip on love and loving relationships, you know? It seems like the Hogwarts teachers give up romantic relationships in order to be surrogate parents to their students-- we've never had a hint that any have any attachments other than to the school, almost like Catholic priests and nuns.
I'm also disappointed that we never heard more about Hermione's parents, who I would have thought would be really interesting. And I agree with everyone who thought Ginny and Lily could both have been much more fleshed out characters-- doesn't Harry himself ask at one point how his mother could have loved his father if he was so pompous and petty? Did I miss the turning point for them?
I've never read the LOTR books, but it certainly reminded me of the classic quest narrative structure, from Star Wars to more mythic stuff. Heroes have to wander lost in the wilderness as a character-building time, the final apocalyptic battle where everyone has to choose sides, the primacy of sacrifice as the height of nobility, etc.
Aw, shucks, Phantom.
(Scuffs dirth with toe)
Actually logged back on to point out further evidence that one BEEEELion dollars fatally undermines author-editor relationship:
1. Where is Snape's headmaster portrait when Harry goes back to Dumbledore's office at the end?
2. Far more crucially, and just absolutely AWFUL,
"Why are they all staring?" demanded Albus as he and Rose craned around to look at the other students.
I have no problem imaginging that Harry and Hermione both have been Aurors for the last 19 years. None at all. But the Potters have been living in the center of wizardry all that time. No question about it, Harry's wife is a member of one of the few large "pureblood" families left after all. Albus has, at the least, accompanied James to the Hogwarts train before (once? twice? hard to tell).
So, this is supposed to be the first time he's ever encountered anyone staring at his family?
I'M GOING TO POKE OUT MY EYEBALLS RIGHT NOW.
Seriously. Any sort of editor at all would just change it. "Look, they're all staring again." Or, you know, a slightly better written sentence to that effect. And the rest of the damn page stays EXACTLY the same. Ron gets his joke, Harry gets his transition to the quiet scar, everything stays the same.
Plus, as a bonus, the readers don't have their intelligence insulted. It would be all good.
More evidence on the sloppy editing--maybe I'm sensitive to it b/c I'm so lousy at doing my own, but did anyone else notice how the copy editing fell apart at the end?
Oh, Mir, Harry doesn't have the Elder Wand. He has Draco's regular old wand, because he disarmed Draco at the Malfoy house.
I think the idea is that the Elder Wand recognized Draco as his new owner/master when Draco sent it flying over the tower turret at the opening of that scene at the end of Book VI. The wand is taken up and buried with Dumbledore. Voldemort believes, because Snape killed Dumbledore, that it's the killing that makes Snape the master. But as Ollivander explained to Harry, no one knows if it's the killing that causes the transfer of ownership. Harry gambles at the end that it's the defeat, the mastery, that makes the difference. (Not really a gamble, since Dumbledore didn't kill Grindelwald to take control of it, but still.)
The whole reveal about the Elder Wand and its ownership worked for me. Although the whole "I died to protect all these people so none of your charms are working" bit? Not so much.
Even though I love, love, love that Neville pulls out the Sword and kills Nagini. It's a neat little slap at the goblin idea of ownership, too. (Join me in wondering what happened to the goblins after Voldemort was defeated. If nothing else, didn't this war point out all the serious cracks in the relationship between wizards and other magical beings? Wasn't that something Rowling promised to explore further when that fountain was destroyed at the end of OotP?)
I was sort of confused there about the wands, wasn't I. Harry has his wand, but it gets destroyed. He takes Draco's at the Malfoy house, and keeps it until the end because it feels right. Voldemort steals the Elder Wand from Dumbledore's tomb. In the last scene, Harry's using Draco's wand against the Elder Wand, which ends up not being able to curse him because it belongs to Harry, not Voldemort.
Again, I did think this was pretty darn cool.
Rowling promises an encyclopedia of Wizarding world material that includes information she couldn't include in the books. I'll be interested to see how much of that information fills in gaps and hanging chads. (What happened to George's joke shop; to Neville's parents, via their biographical information; to Harry and Hermione's careers; etc etc etc)
I'll also think it is a bit of a cop-out.
Not that I'll refuse to buy it, or anything.
On the editing/continuity thing...
How did Malfoy get back into Hogwarts along with Crabbe and Goyle? I'm still unclear (and I went back to look) on whether he'd attended school at all that year. If not, how did C&G get him there so quickly?
I think Jodi is totally right in that she plotted herself into a corner re: SNape. It's a similar thing that happens to TV series which try to have a larger "arc" but must also produce, week-by-week, stories that grab people's attention, all in the context of external pressures.
There's a lot roiling around in my head re: love as a motivator, Lily, Snape, and Petunia, much of which comes down to Lily, despite being largely an enigma, being the central point to so much of what comes after. Petunia and Snape both love Lily - and look what happens out of each of those loves, and how it affects Harry. I think both of them are *too* focused on Lily - they love, but possessively, and both see Harry not as a cherishable reminder of her but as evidence of their losses.
Snape may be central, but the thing is that he cannot grow and change -- because his whole schtick is that he protects Harry becuase he *can't* grow past his childish infatuation/love. If that love had been mature, he might have been able to grow to love others, to even love Lily's son. He does what he does *because* he's stuck.
I would suggest that Snape loves Dumbledore. As Harry does. And that the rivalry there contributes to what keeps them apart.
Sheila, Ooo, good point.
Sara, I agree that Snape stays pretty static. Oddly enough, if Rowling had not gone the "Albus Severus" route and had Harry say that Snape was "probably the bravest man I ever knew," I would not be so bothered by the lack of Snape in the last book.
Although I still think the story would work much, much better (and Harry, Hermione, and Ron would have more to do during their wandering) if Harry found out about Lily and Snape via Petunia, and if Harry came to the conclusion about his being a Horcrux on his own. Imagine he's just given up chasing the Hallows, but now he realizes he has to go willingly to his death. Opening the Snitch, then, gives him a reassurance and a comfort that it's the right decision beyond what happened in the book.
Sarah, I meant to write, "I agree with your reasoning about why Snape stays static."
Sara, I'm interested in the way that love for Lily trips on the boundary between Muggle and non-Muggle. For both Petunia and Snape, they lost Lily twice: once over the Muggle/magic boundary (because neither one of them could overcome his or her resentment about it), and again when she died.
There's so much to think about in the radical alienation that must occur when magic strikes a Muggle family. What does it do to even a non-dysfunctional family when one member is gifted with powers that the others cannot approach? (And may not even be allowed to know about. How does the prohibition against using magic around Muggles play out within a family?) The tragedies that play out around Lily Evans are a fascinating glimpse of what it might cost to belong to both worlds.
Phantom, yes! Muggles and renunciation: Hermione not only sends her parents (who are PROUD of her abilities) to the other side of the world to save them from the consequences of Hermione's choices in the wizarding world, but she removes their memories of ever having had a daughter. Knowing that these kind of choices have been made in all of these families makes the rounding up and rooting out of Muggle-born that much more wrenching. So wrenching, apparently, that having introduced it into the book, Rowling has to walk away from it.
Phantom, I liked that too, and it another archetypal story-- how do dynamics change when a member of the family (or society) is unusual, talented or gifted? Like the X-Men, you know? And even like gifted/talented kids in classrooms-- Hogwarts seems very much like a place where all the "weird" kids get to band together precisely because they are weird and unlike "normal" people. That's why it would be really interesting to know what Hermione's life was like before she went to Hogwarts, you know? How do Muggle parents deal with the idea that their child is basically going to leave them behind and join another world?
Jody, the path you suggest is 11 jillion times better than the one that JKR took.
Phantom, I think your points about Lily and Muggles in the Magical world are fascinating. I wish like crazy we'd had a chance to deal with that, even in passing, in the book(s).
Does anyone know what the reaction at Leaky Cauldron and Mugglenet has been? There's no way I want to get sucked into those discussions, but I'm wondering how it's shaping up in a more "kid-central" place? [My sense is that Mugglenet in particular collects the college kids who great up with Harry mania. Am I wrong?]
There are a LOT of people at Leaky Cauldron who are dissatisfied with the book, for many of the same reasons stated here-- too many plot holes, too many loose ends, off-kilter pacing, etc. Mugglenet I don't know about.
Well, it did all come with a nice little bow on it at the end.
But I'm cheesed about Petunia. After dropping hints about her like that, to make it all a case of wishful thinking/sour grapes? Gah.
I enjoyed it. I can't think of anything else (other than the first His Dark Materials book) that I can tear through faster and with more enjoyment than these Potter books. Was it Jody who referred to the "small clevernesses?" Those are the real joy in these books, including this last.
I really wanted Alan Rickman to have some better scenes in the last movie, too.
This is hardly the place for it, but did anyone else think of Maureen Johnson's Harry Potter spoilers (Part I and Part II) when they got to "Albus Severus"? Because I immediately thought of Johnson's long take on Rowling and Snape and Rickman in Part II:
“Snape,” [Rowling] said, getting up to go through the cupboards, “is my greatest creation. I love Alan Rickman. Don’t you love Alan Rickman?”
“He’s a very good actor,” I said.
“Sometimes,” she said dreamily, “I have my pilot fly my plane over his house, very low. You should see him run as we come swooping down over his lawn. It is very, very beautiful to watch. I do that with all the actors, actually, but he is my favorite.”
“But what about the question?” I asked. “Good or bad? I mean, he did kill Dumbledore.”
“Who? Alan Rickman?”
“No. Snape.”
“I don’t think Alan Rickman has ever killed anyone,” she said, munching some uncooked spaghetti right out of the box. “But if he did, I would forgive him.”
“Okay,” I said in desperation, “when Alan Rickman is playing Snape, is he playing a good Snape or a bad Snape?”
“You want to know if Snape was actually killing Dumbledore according to a pre-arranged plan . . . maybe even one set by Dumbledore himself. And that’s why Snape simply blocks Harry’s curses at the end of the Half-Blood Prince instead of just killing him, when he clearly could kill him.”
“Yes!” I said. “Yes! That’s exactly what I want to know.”
“Alan Rickman asked me the same question,” she said. “When I had him locked in my basement.”
I stiffened, but she went on crunching the spaghetti and smiling in a very creepy manner.
“The answer is obvious, of course,” she said. “All the evidence is there. Actually if you just read the chapter at Spinner’s End carefully, the one with the Unbreakable Vow . . .”
“I think I follow you,” I said. “Snape takes the Unbreakable Vow in order not to give his position away in front of Bellatrix, but Dumbledore’s death is pre-arranged, maybe part of some prophesy. I mean, Dumbledore knows all about it . . . though he does seem surprised that Snape does it. But maybe that’s all part of helping Snape keep his cover and . . .”
“God, you do go on,” she said. “The thing you need to know is that in book seven, Snape is laid bare.”
“We get to learn his mysterious past?”
“No. He’s naked. I stripped him of his clothes. They’re making a movie of book seven, you know. With the same actors!”
“But what about Snape’s goodness or evilness?”
“Who cares?” she said. “I certainly don’t. I care about his nakedness. Alan works out. A lot.”
I decided to leave the matter alone, largely because I was frightened.
Ah, good stuff.
My kids keep asking what happens to Harry Potter, and I'm realizing they're not going to read these books unspoiled, since I don't think they're ready even for Quirrel's turban yet. That makes me sort of sad.
Jody, those are hilarious! I love the idea of Ginny and all the Beauxbatons girls as robots, and Ron as a dream character like "The Sixth Sense," almost!
I am really posting a lot in this thread, but I'm in agony over here because my husband has not finished yet!
How old is old enough to start reading the books, do you all think? Or having them read to kids?
Ok, I read the whole thing last night not because I was dying to know how it ended, but because I wanted to come hang out with you guys here.
I agree with most of the criticism here, but still liked it. I think my expectations were lower, because I thought numbers 5 and 6 were so weak.
Phantom,
The muggle/wizard boundary is interesting to me, and I've wondered about how a muggle-born wizard's going off to Hogwarts is handled -- we really never even hear Hermione's experience in that regard.
The idea of finding out about a new life that is different from your families and going off to join another world -- that's another fairly common kid lit trope. "Little Mermaid" anyone? Having to give up your family and childhood life as part of growing up pops up not infrequently.
Speaking of Muggles -- why was Colin Creevy still at Hogwarts? Hadn't they pulled out all the Muggleborn kids by then?
Sara, the intro to a copy I used to have of The Secret Garden talks about the kid's lit trope of removing kids from their parents (either through death or summer camp) and how Roald Dahl does such a brilliant job of getting rid of the parents in James and the Giant Peach.
I think that's one of the reasons Hedwig died early on-- to signal that childhood was over for Harry from then on.
My 12-year-old is about halfway through and says she loves the stuff about H, H and R being in the woods. I wonder if she'll come back later and wonder whatever happened to Hogwarts?
Also, that excerpt of Rowling re: Snape? Way too funny.
"Oh, wait, I forgot the thing I hated most: Tonks left her NEWBORN BABY with her mother to come fight with the Order? Le bullshit. What did she do, squirt milk all over them before she died?"
I know I'm new here, but I most sincerely hope that this doesn't mean that you are judgemental of, and not respectful of, other people's parenting choices.
From what I've read of you, I think you are a marvelous parent and have made some fantastic parenting decisions (and I am able to acknowledge that knowing that some of the choices I will be making someday will be different) -- but there are equally fantastic parents out there who have made just as valid, different choices.
Hope I didn't come off too heavy-handed, but that comment did bother me and I was hoping I could get you to clarify...
Of course it means that I'm judgmental of other people's parenting choices, Easter. Also disrespectful. Because, you know, we are here to discuss actual parenting choices made by actual parents, and not fictional characters written by an author.
Is that all clear now?
I've been lurking, and cheering.
I have to cheer out loud to Phantom's last comment though - go Phantom! This is SO not the place for parenting drive-bys and appreciate your clarification of that.
The Tonks thing didn't bother me. She seemed exactly like the kind of character who would stash the baby with her mother while she went off to battle Death Eaters.
Funny about spraying them with milk, tho...
You know, that's my problem, Kathy. I didn't see anything from previous characterizations of Tonks that would have made that turn of events obvious to me. Totally out of left field as far as I was concerned.
(Maybe out of left field as far as Rowling was concerned, too, since there's speculation elsewhere that Tonks and Lupin were the two characters that she didn't originally expect to kill off.)
I *did* see Tonks as the die-hard OotP member who would want to be in the last battle -- what I *didn't* see was her having a baby so soon. That felt like gratuitous parallelism.
I agree with Jane, actually, as I think about it more.
Its the Last Battle. The OotP is outnumbered and pinning all its hopes on this. Every single person counts.
And if you don't go, and you lose, what world does your child -- son of a werewolf and a half-blood -- have to grow up in?
It's not the choice everyone would have made, but in a way its the flipside of what Lily did. Tonks put her life on the line to guarantee her child could grow up free to use his gifts, whatever they might be.
Oooo, gratuitous parallelism and the surprisingly immediate baby. That's it exactly, Jane!
(And -- really -- I'm not looking for anyone to give me reasons as to why Tonks and Lupin might have wanted to have a baby right away. I'm saying that, in the absence of any further character development for them, their story seemed telegraphed in for the author's purposes rather than a natural outgrowth of what we already knew about them.)
You know you can always count on me to come up with literary terms, Phantom.
I'm not looking for explanations for it, either. I'm sure there are fanfic writers who could provide them, if necessary.
I liked it, I really did. And I can certainly understand Rowling needing to get out from under the pressure of providing most of the media-centric world with entertainment.
I'm still startled that Lupin's death happened offstage (moreso that I am about Tonks'.) But I suppose the Greeks were right about unseen violence being the most disturbing. Even though Dobby's death was wrenching, it's Lupin whose death I keep pondering.
Yeah, and I think that's why I didn't really care that she abandoned the baby. I didn't believe in the baby in the first place.
I have no opinion either way about Tonks leaving the baby to fight Voldemort. The baby seemed like a half-hearted plot device to continue the angsty-ness of the Lupin-Tonks relationship, and to make Harry (temporarily) more of a Sirius Black figure (only obviously it would be to Ron and Hermione that he properly belongs in that role, so it doesn't really work). It didn't detract from the story, but it didn't really add anything for me, either.
It's probably worth noting that James and Lily Potter went into hiding with Harry when he was a baby. I can't remember right now if that was because of the prophecy or not. But they were powerful members of the Order who ran and hid rather than risk their child.
The imagery that stays with me most powerfully in the last chapters, rather than any confrontation or death, is the scene in the Room of Requirement, as everyone we've lost along the way to graduation returns to Hogwarts to take up the fight. Actually, everything to do with Neville and the Room of Requirement is absolutely excellent, and highlights how much I missed the D.A. in Book 6.
It occurs to me that none of the "big deaths" in the end games of the books has ever been as emotional for me as the sentences evoking those deaths imply they should be. I don't think I choked up when Black died, for example -- it was words on a page, not something I really felt. I certainly wasn't physically affected by Cedric Diggory's death. But I had tears running down my cheeks when Dobby died.
I think there's something about the way stuff piles on top of stuff in the last chapters of these books that makes it hard for me to stop to feel the events.
Someday, someone will convince Rowling to write honestly about the effects of all this attention, and the movies, on the creation process. There were moments in the last chapters that I thought had been affected by the movies, not to their detriment necessarily but just ... the influence seemed to be there.
Is it possible that the way stuff piles up in the last chapters is the way war is?
Jody, I said it before, I am so with you on the excellence of Neville's part. You just reinforce my feeling think the biggest thing crippling book 7 is the decision to leave Hogwarts out of so much of it.
Songbird, I think that's exactly right.
Sheila, ChicagoMama has a good point on her blog about Neville's bravery being linked to Harry being out of touch and on the run:
I thought the whole point of Neville kicking ass and taking names and becoming a leader was all the more powerful because he had no knowledge of what Harry was up to and where he was, and yet he had faith. And he was another example of someone who would never have looked to become a leader (another similarity between he and Harry) and yet he became a great leader when the job was thrust upon him.
I think that's true. I just wish there had been some way for us, as readers, to see more of Neville, without having it be via Harry!
I suppose that's what our active imaginations are for.
(BTW, because I'm still on the movies kick, I think the last two books are going to be the hardest books yet for screenwriters to turn into movies. Book 6 must have given them fits....)
I actually really liked the book (at least it was better than the last one and I didn't find the ending too dissapointing), but I'm much more fascinated by the idea of the series. It became such a cultural phenomenan. As I was reading the Deathly Hallows, I just couldn't help but thinking that a part of my childhood was about to end. I'd been reading the books since I was seven or eight. I had been growing up with Harry Potter. I think for everyone of this generation, however Rowling could have done things better, even if the narrative wasn't always the best, something really amazing happened with these books. They got people to love reading. As cliched as this may sound, Rowling really did create a magical world. Even if this book could have been better, I really enjoyed it just because it was a Harry Potter book.
Jody, thanks for the link. I agree about Neville rising to the occasion--but he isn't isolated, he's still at Hogwarts, he has all the structures of the school available to him to help him in his leadership. Rowling effectively imagines him becoming a leader in that setting.
Whereas she doesn't give Harry, Hermione, and Ron an effective story away from Hogwarts. It's a series of convenient plot devices one after another.
The thing I will give her credit for (here and throughout) is getting into Harry's adolescent head. The obessession with the Hallows was well done--you felt him getting caught up, you wondered if anything was going to check him--but she didn't figure out how to make the Trio into an effective, independent group.
Even before the return to Hogwarts, the reunion with Luna was a huge boost to the energy of the plot.
The problem is that throughout the series, her point of view was always limited to Harry, so if Harry doesn't hear about Hogwarts, we don't. I don't know how to get around that--as ChicagoMom says, a movie would definitely cross-cut to Hogwarts, but it would have been a disruption to mess with p.o.v. so much in the final book.
On the point about making 7 into a movie, I think this one will be easier than 6. I think they will give us more Hogwarts information in parallel with the woods wandering scenes. That may have been one of the things I disliked about the book--it felt much more like a screenplay to me. (but that may be my impression from skipping through the battle scenes)
Did anyone else follow the pre-publication gossips that Rowling supposedly said someone will perform magic late in life? Did anyone catch that?
I do hope she produces an encyclopedia type guide
I just finished mine. I loved it. I BAWLED. Then I stopped. My husband laughed at me. I didn't care.
I haven't had chance to read any comments, I'll be back tomorrow to read that and hopefully make comments that are more concrete.
Just had to say that I couldn't BELIEVE that Phantom finished this book in 5 hours. Especially staying up all night! You totally rock!
On the whole, I liked it and found it a reasonably satisfying end to the series, but share many of Phantom and Jody's complaints. (Haven't skimmed all the comments yet.) The plot wandering lost for 100s of pages in the forest was extremely annoying and tedious, and I too missed what was going on with the Order while they wandered in the woods. Way too many cheesey plot devices to examine the past, and the whole idea that Harry's central crisis of faith revolved around Dubledore's true nature was totally unnecessary, IMHO. Would have prefered to see more real-time of Snape's duplicity, of the Horcruxes being destroyed, of Ginny and Neville back at Hogwarts.
But some of it (like the Battle for Hogwarts) was *exactly* what I wanted from this book. The epic battle, the denoument. I choked up several times when the good guys banded together, I'm a sucker for that kind of sentiment.
The final faceoff between Harry and Voldemort? Meh. The fact that Voldemort's own curse killed him, relieving Harry of the need to do so, and especially after Lupin's odd lecture about Expelliramus being Harry's "signature" spell, and Lupin so freshly dead? WTF?
And maybe it's the pg hormones, but I cried like a baby when Dobby died and Harry dug the grave by hand. And yet she glossed over Tonks and Lupin's death so quickly that I barely had a chance to absorb it, let alone emotionally respond to it.
Will be back to finish reading everyone's comments later, but I must say that I spent more than two hours reading a printout of the HP6 spoiler thread (62 pages!!) on Friday night, and it was a great mindset to be in for the final book, so thanks to the clever Pixie contributors for that!
I also finished as fast as possible so as to be able to join the party!
Though I kind of wish I'd waited more than five minutes after turning the last page to form my own opinions before clicking over here. I'm very easily influenced and now I think just exactly what everyone who commented above thinks. Even those of you who disagree. (Like Tevye: "You're right--and you're right too." "But, they can't both be right!" "You're also right!")
That said--I was genuinely, heartily sick of all the wandering in the woods. It was incredibly dreary and depressing. I kept thinking, "Finally, she's not tied to the school year, and she *still* ends up blowing chapters and chapters on filler. When, when will it end?"
And I also thought the epilogue was saccharine and blah. And the children were completely uninteresting. Like others above, I wanted to know what Harry and Hermione and Ron ended up doing for a living, among other things. The emphasis on everyone getting married and having babies--while, yes, in real life it's incredibly fulfilling and wonderful and all that--seems a bit of a letdown as the very end of a series with such heroic themes.
I didn't mind the scene with Dumbledore, though I did wish she hadn't picked King's Cross station. Some of us had enough of that sort of thing with the end of Narnia. And I thought the flopping baby was eerie. Can't decide whether I wish she'd explained that or not. (And at the time I wondered if it was some kind of sinister sign that Harry and Dumbledore were able to ignore the suffering of an innocent creature while chatting for pages and pages. Shades of Ursula LeGuin's story "The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas.")
Also--Sheila--do you really think she played down the Holocaust parallels? I thought they were uncomfortably strong.
I liked Luna.
Considering how high the body count was, I thought she copped out by not killing off anyone more major. Yeah, okay, it's a kids' book (sort of), but structurally I thought she should've offed Hagrid, at least.
Really she should've killed Harry. Though I am also glad she didn't.
But really, my main revelation as a result of finishing and posting is that Phantom and Jody should be co-editing the NYT Book Review.
Elswhere, when she first went there, my reaction was "aha, yes, this was the inevitable place this was all going--purebloods, mudbloods" and I thought it was strong through the Ministry raid. And then ... I don't think she sustained it after the "goblin's revenge" chapter, where we only hear about it, we don't see it.
Y'all know how Orson Scott Card wrote another series in the Ender universe to show us what was going on with the other kids in his Geesh while he was living forever? Do any of you think that JKR might be writing a book about that last year at Hogwart's from Neville's POV?
Liz, Rowling has said the only HP-universe book in the works is the encyclopedia (am I the only one who sings the spelling of that one in my head?). She has said it will have bits of information that never made it into the books, so hopefully there will be more on Potterwatch, the Longbottoms, etc. In fact, it would be fun to open a thread and make our list of all the various bits and pieces she could throw into the encyclopedia.
elsewhere, I think (but I haven't checked) that the flawed child at King's Cross is Voldemort's damaged soul. It might have been present at the resurrection scene at the end of Goblet of Fire, too.
I don't know what to make of Rowling's "never say never" about other books. If anyone could avoid diluting their storyline because of the lure of cash, you'd want it to be her. So hopefully she's just admitting that she adores this amazing universe she's created and it's always possible she'll want to return to it someday.
Ooooo, that would be a fun book, Liz! I mean, I'm sure fanfic writers are already all over it, but it would be awesome to see what Rowling would do with it, especially now that she's liberated from having to bring Harry's story to its conclusions.
(I was saying to Mr. Blue, in a non-spoilerish way, that I'd never read any fanfic and didn't really want to, but I was feeling that other people would have taken the end of the story in more interesting directions than Rowling did. And he said, "Well, that's the way science works, isn't it? One person has this brilliant idea that couldn't have been created by anyone else, but then other people elaborate on it and take it in directions that the first person never could have seen alone." I totally heart Mr. Blue.)
You know, Sheila, I think I would have been really uncomfortable if she'd been anymore explicit with the Holocaust parallels, especially since this was heading to such a Jesus-parallel conclusion. Anything more than what she did would have felt appropriated, somehow. At least to me.
Almond Joy, thanks for commenting! I agree that the power of Harry Potter as a cultural phenomenon is not at all diminished by the failures of Book 6 or 7. I think part of what's bumming me out, though, is that I'm having trouble imagining myself rereading Book 7 for pleasure in years to come. Maybe I'll change my mind once I'm over my disappointment in it, or if Rowling fleshes out more of the story in other books.
Elswhere, YES on Narnia! (Though I wasn't going to say anything, since I'm fairly sure that our reaction to Narnia is not generally shared by Lewis's co-religionists.)
You know, I think I would have been able to focus much more on the battle scenes if there had been fewer Horcruxes still needing to keep track of at that moment. Because y'all are right that the battle scenes were very exciting, and Neville the highlight of the book.
Late to the comments but agreeing with a lot of them...
I think she did rush the creation of this book; some more time spent thinking would have probably gotten her more creatively past what were mostly point-of-view problems (if Harry/Ron/Hermione have to wander friendless in the woods, they can't be talking to their friends, but therefore we get no development there - and watching Snape would have been very very helpful). However given the machinery of The Franchise it was probably inevitable.
And it is one of her basic weaknesses as a writer - I was really frustrated that Dumbledore was Explaining Again.
I do think she has a problem with female characters being interesting and I wonder how much of this to blame on Tolkien and Arthurian legend.
The heavy handed anglo-saxon mythological canon stuff did not bother me that much in the context of children's literature.
I still found it satisfying as an end to the series though; I didn't feel any of the essential thrusts of the books were suddenly turned around or that there were any huge gaps in logic.
FLAYED child. I never saw the HP4 movie, how did they do it on screen? because: creepy.
You know, I do think Rowling earned the King's Cross reference. At the very least, it really is the London station from which trains to The North East (including Edinburgh) depart. Of course, there's been a circular argument about that, locating Hogwarts north of Edinburgh because the train departs from King's Cross.
Besides the fact that it makes sense that Harry would associate the Hogwarts Express with a conforting waystation, there's also the fact that Rowling has talked about death as the next great adventure, and about the necessity of "going on," all the way through the series.
I can't remember enough about the Arthur legends to know if the sacrificial-death elements were part of the Christianization of Celtic and Saxon literature, or evidence that those tropes are common throughout all the cultures of very early common-era Europe. They don't strike me as terribly Greek, but what little I know about Greek myth, I've learned from reading D'Aulaire to the kids in the last two months.
I think the reference was earned, Jody, but the chapter title was not. That was heavy handed.
Jody, all of Europe was Celtic at one time.
Jody, Voldemort at the end of Goblet of Fire, before the spell that gives him his old body back, is described as in the shape of a young human child, but raw, red and scaly, so hideous that Harry can barely stand to look at it. I think in the movie we only get a quick glimpse, which was fine by me.
I liked this book very much. I found it satisfying and much preferable to books 5 and 6 (though I liked those better on re-reading than originally). More detail later, but I want to recommend Cheryl Klein's thoughts on the book (she's the American copy editor for the series, at least for the last few books).
http://chavelaque.blogspot.com/
Particularly, read her points on the epilogue. Points 1 and 5 are what I like about the epilogue -- that Harry has a large, loving nuclear and extended family, which is what he's missed most all these years, and that he's a good father, the kind he would've wanted to have; and that his happiness comes now from being ordinary, not from power of any kind. I hadn't thought of Cheryl's other points but think they're good as well.
I didn't love the epilogue -- I did want to know what George is doing know, and Luna, and who is headmaster (though I'm assuming McGonagall), and especially what Harry and Ginny and Hermione and Ron are all doing now. But I can also see leaving that to the reader's imaginations - we know they're not Hogwarts professors, but beyond that, they could be doing anything. But it's more like what ordinary life is like when there's no longer a desperate war on.
My one major disappointment: that there was little chance to show Ginny using her strong powers. Offscreen, we know that she's helping lead the resistance at Hogwarts and that she leaves the ROR to fight in the battle. But with the set-up of her being a very powerful witch, and of refusing to be left behind in the 5th book and reminding us that she has her own experiences with Voldemort to avenge, I think we should've seen more. I thought that she'd end up fighting alongside Harry at some point. I liked seeing her using her smarts and power previously, and even if she didn't come along with Harry, it would've been good to see her doing something like Neville (who was fabulous) at the end. At least she did get to fight Bellatrix.
Minor disappointments: that Beauxbatons and Durmstrang didn't join in the fight against V., which I thought was foreshadowed at the end of Goblet. That we don't hear about some kooky and cool thing Luna is doing 19 years later.
It didn't bother me that the deaths were sudden and not "led up to," since this is a war on home turf and that's the way it can happen.
Things I was very glad to see: McGonagall leading the Battle of Hogwarts. Neville as the resistance leader in Hogwarts, and his brilliant use of the Room of Requirement. Mrs. Weasley taking down Bellatrix. (She's not the character doing magic late in life, is she? we've seen her do magic. So who is it?) Pottercast. Luna and her matter-of-factness in the basement of Malfoy Manor, and Ollivander saying that she lifted his spirits immensely in captivity. That the eye in the mirror wasn't Dumbledore, but Aberforth (which surprised me). Hermione making practical use of all her power and intelligence to be the one to save the trio multiple times, figure things out, and keep them going in the wilderness. Ron (who I'm not particularly fond of) realizing he was acting like a git, and rescuing Harry and the sword. Percy telling the Minister "did I mention I'm resigning?" Neville's gran bursting with pride over him, resisting arrest at home, and going to fight along with him. Narcissa protecting Harry in order to get to Draco. Harry's sadness over Dobby and respect for him (I mostly don't cry at books, and the house-elf parts have never been favorites of mine, but I teared up over "a free elf".) Harry treating Kreacher more kindly and being rewarded for it.
From the opening chapter, when Snape did nothing to help Charity Burbage, I thought he was going to be evil after all (or at least Machiavellian). I thought so about until he gave Harry the Pensieve memories. So JKR faked me out there. But I still can't quite reconcile myself to Harry naming his son after him. I know Snape underwent a lot to protect Harry and keep his vow to Dumbledore, but on re-reading, I was really struck with his meanness to the kids (I wrote cruelty at first, but that's perhaps too strong). It wasn't just as a cover, it was his general way of interacting with the students. So while I appreciate his sacrifices, I can't quite see naming one's child after him.
Teddy Lupin was raised by his grandmother Andromeda, I presume, but the epilogue says he eats at the Potters' house about four times a week, so from that I took that Harry was a close godfather to him.
After reading all these comments, the one conclusion I come to is that, even leaving out the wandering in the woods, the book would've had to be about 2000 pages to get in everything we wanted
My apologies for not reading any of the above comments, but I just wanted to be able to vent my frustration somewhere that, while I ordered my copy on February 6 from a Big Box Bookstore Online, my copy, promised when the rest of the world got theirs, has STILL NOT ARRIVED!!!!
No, it is sitting in a warehouse, or a truck, and whenever I check, my tracking report says "On route to final destination" Folks, that was Friday. I could have driven to Florida and back by now. My book is just a few towns over!!!
Argggggg!
(Yes, I know Wednesday whining moved, and that it's not wednesday, but thanks for humoring me.)
Hey, Neighbor Lady, don't they owe you a free one for being late with yours? Mine (also ordered in Feb online) arrived today, but I bit the bullet and bought it at B&N Saturday anyway. Who can't use two copies of HPVII, after all?
And I meant to say earlier, that my favorite thing in the novel (I think--there are lots of things I like) is that children's stories turn out to be so important. Maybe it sounds like special pleading to some folks, but I thought it was JKR having some fun about her genre. Cracked me up.
Phantom, the snarky page-by-page review you linked to above was priceless. I will snicker for hours.
It's too soon after finishing for me to string together my feelings about this book. Parts of it I loved but mostly it just didn't do it for me.
Like others have already said, Dobby's death and burial got to me but I so annoyed that the other major deaths were glossed over and dismissed with the "I don't want to have to see their bodies" crap.
I was happy that Snape was good but I despised the entire tale being told via the Pensieve. This could have been made so personal and enjoyable.
I really did not like the final chapter. I would have preferred it to end with the victory over Voldemort than to have that epilogue. It felt like a rushed together bit of tid bits that said little about a few.
The whole Malfoy family reunion made me ill. They did too much to end up together and breeding.
Uccellina, I'm still giggling occasionally over "Still, we'll have all those great memories of Hedwig. Like the time Hedwig delivered a package. Or the other time Hedwig delivered a package."
Okay, finger on what bothered me about the Pensieve.
It wasn't the pensieve as a tool, per se.
It was that Snape died before Harry was able to even see the knowledge that he was given, such that the moment that passed between them didn't mean to Harry what it would have meant if any of that information had been given prehumously (is that a word?). It took away from the emotional weight of Snape's death -- which should, I think, have been at least as weighty as Dobby's.
All we got was the "green met black" line, which just isn't able to carry the weight of the meaning behind it.
O.k., I finished this last night (too many houseguests and birthday parties to stay up Friday night reading) and I really liked it, and am VERY sad that it is over. Even with all the flaws that have been mentioned (particularly the whole Snape thing - I needed MUCH more Snape, not just him in the Pensieve.), I enjoyed finding myself in that world.
I loved Neville! And Luna ROCKED. And when they all came out at the end, ready to fight while Voldemort was taunting them, I felt a rush of pleasure and pride - the good guys would NOT knuckle under!
More Percy would have been really good. I would have gladly read 10 extra pages to get Percy and his family's reconciliation.
I'll have more later, but I wanted to jump in with my thoughts.
Back to reading the excellent comments.
One thing that bugged me was Harry saying Voldemort's name and being caught by the Snatchers. Ron clearly told them that they couldn't say his name without being tracked. After all the trouble they were going through not to be caught, and with Ron shouting, "Harry, NO!" midsentence, you would think he would have been a bit brighter than to get them all caught in an entirely stupid way.
I'm a Christian, but I didn't think of "King's Cross" as a Jesus reference. Guess I'm pretty slow.
The seeming death and revival of a local hero is a motif that goes back way before Christianity. (And it's been posited, even by Christians, that the followers of Jesus were just borrowing an idea that would make him sound god-like.)I never thought of Harry as dead, just as having had the Voldemort knocked out of him and having some sort of magic-y rendezvous with Dumbledore.
All that said, I was really ready for him to die, much as I didn't like the idea, especially after he gathered up his strength in his moments with James, Lily and Sirius.
The Princess is still reading...she was into The Battle of Hogwarts last I checked.
Yep - and there's also the death as gaining knowledge and insight motif. Odin hanging on the world tree to learn to read the runes. Out of self-sacrifice to the death comes knowledge and wisdom.
Yes, I'm with Uccelina - that snarky review was fabulous. I resisted going there for a bit as I wasn't sure I wanted my enthusiasm for the book dampened by teh snark - but it was clever. I didn't really like the comments posted on it - people derogating the book just for sport. But teh snark was teh funniest.
I was just going to go copy my favorite parts and post them in my blog - but it looks like the blog has been suspended!
I was going to say what Songbird said about not reading the King's Cross part as Christian or Jesus references. I think the cosmic struggle between good and evil transcends any particular religion. I know there are people who want to see HP as either "anti-Christian" or loaded with Christian symbols, but I don't read it that way.
I fee the same way about M. L'Engle's time trilogy--it's theologial in a way, but not overtly Christian.
Um, I think you pretty much *have* to be Christian to not see "King's Cross" as a Christian reference.
I didn't see it as a Christian reference until that was brought up later, Phantom (and I'm Jewish, as most of the pixies probably know). Probably because I'm so familiar with King's Cross as a tube and train station (when I lived in London for months, I changed trains at King's Cross every day). I read "King's Cross" and my mind immediately goes to "train," not Christianity.
King's Cross Station is named after the King's Cross monument, which was a cross (a Christian symbol) erected in 1835 as a tribute to King George IV. While people today may or may not make the connection to this history, as the cross itself has been removed, the name itself is derived from the Christian symbol that stood at that location.
Many of the locations in London that have "Cross" in their name are references to crosses which stood at those locations. Charing Cross Road, for example, is the site of a cross erected by King Edward I.
I apologize and withdraw from the conversation.
I don't think disagreeing with me merits either an apology or a forced withdrawal from the conversation, Songbird.
Goodness, I HOPE disagreement doesn't merit withdrawal.
Since L'Engle explicitly wanted her time-trilogy books to have Christian symbolism, I'm a little bemused by your claim, revdrmom.
There might be something worth saying here about the ways that Europeans are still steeped in explicitly Christian symbolism and ideas, but because they've become a largely secular group, they don't want to claim those symbols or ideas as "Christian" -- but since that lands us smack in the middle of the current crisis in Christian-Muslim relations in Europe, and this is supposed to be a thread about Harry Potter, maybe I shouldn't mention it.
Jody - for that matter it could be seen as evidence of the results of having a "state religion." My experience in school in the UK was that sure, school prayer was an insitutional part of my school day, but it was a ritual that most of the class was so severely unconnected to that they probably really thought it was a "Nondenominational" prayer.
I love everyone's comments. I finished on Sunday but I am still mulling it over.
I have to say when I thought Harry was going to die I was relieved. I really wanted the series to have grown up and ended in a more serious manner which to me warrants a major character death. Then with the resurection or whatever I was dissapointed, I was already prepared for him to die and he didn't and it kind of felt ruined to me.
I didn't read the epilogue until a day after I'd finished the book, and what a waste of space!
I know that the various "Cross" places in London are named after where historical crosses stood, but their names still evoke for me, first and foremost, what's there now. King's Cross to me = train. Charing Cross to me = great used bookstores. (Side note: I was psyched to see Tottenham Court Road as a place where they went. I wonder if Hermione's family used to shop there for furniture and such?)
Which isn't at all to say that King's Cross can't be meant to evoke Christianity, or that it's wrong to read it that way (and after having it pointed out, I think it most likely was what Rowling intended). Just that I don't agree that the Christian reference is the first, most obvious one, or that using King's Cross was heavyhanded. To me, it read as though when Harry was in somewhat of a way station where had to wait before going one place or another, his mind pictured it as the station where he waited to catch the train to Hogwarts.
Yes, PS, I do still check in occasionally! It's good to see the HP thread up and running strong. As usual, lots of excellent comments all around.
I finally had time to finish the book last night and so am rather late to the party. Though I have severe reservations, I really liked most of the book, and unlike some I rather enjoyed all the pointless wandering in the woods—sort of a quest that is going nowhere, which to my mind is precisely where it should have gone.
The problem is not the woods, I think, but that she doesn't make anything of its pointlessness (e.g., that perhaps magical power is more or less pointless, that is, not the way to defeat power?). I also didn't think that she really made enough of the pointlessness of the Hallows, that they are in essence red herrings. Yes, their existence forces Harry to make a decision about power and all that (though for some reason it does not align itself with the pointlessness of power). But why do two of Dumbledore's bequests concern the Hallows? That seems like a rather artificial way to bestow a significance that does not properly belong to them. So it's not so much "what's the point of the Hallows?" but rather "what function does their pointlessness serve?"
This leads me to the final confrontation with Voldemort, which I found both disappointing and deeply disturbing. Children's book or not (more "not" as the series progressed, I think) the mano a mano staging was way over the top and for me rang completely false. Though Harry does give Tom/Voldemort a final chance at some sort of redemption I suppose, Harry to my mind spends most of the scene taunting T/V for his sins. I mean at the end I was almost sympathetic to T/V when he cast the spell at Harry since in many respects I thought Harry provoked it and really left Tom no choice but to be Voldemort, since that identity was in a sense all he had left to live (or die) by. And oddly the moment Voldemort cast the spell I think he overcame his fear of death (since Harry had essentially offered Tom a way out, a way not to die, if he would only renounce the identity of Voldemort). In that respect it reminded me of the end of Don Giovanni, where the title character refuses the Commendatore's demand to repent.
Personally, I wish Voldemort had simply died when Neville killed the snake. It would have been a downer for sure, anticlimactic and far less (melo)dramatic, but also far more in keeping with most of the other (understated) deaths in the battle. It would also have underscored the point, pounded in our heads from almost the beginning, that Voldemort has mythic status only because those who resist him make him so (the point of the Order refusing to honor the taboo is to deprive Voldemort of that mythic status, right?).
The result of all this, and what disturbs me most, I think, is that the book doesn't really earn its happy ending except by the authorial force of that confrontation between Harry and Voldemort. Really, what does Harry sacrifice? What does he have to give up in order to go on living? He may have been willing to sacrifice himself, but there is a large gap between willing and doing, I think.
I have no idea what the fanfic might have come up with already, but I was looking for the cost of destroying Voldemort being that of disenchantment, that is, the sacrifice of magical power as a metaphor for Harry having grown up. That, too, would have tilted the book against myth, whereas now it sort of wallows in it and in what I see as an incoherent way.
Rowling did a wonderful job in the other books of walking the thin line between magic and myth, making that line in my mind a most fascinating structuring principles of the books. Despite the book's dwelling on the need not just to resist power but to refuse it, Rowling seemingly could not resist in that final scene between Harry and Tom/Voldemort succumbing to the power of myth herself, despite the deflating quality of the epilogue, whose utter mundaneness almost, but not quite, dispels it.
anbruch
Re L'Engle and Rowling and Christian references: I think that there are themes or symbols in both works that "could" be seen as Christian, but don't have to be. I think that they are theological (and to me that is different) and apply to the greater cosmic struggle between good and evil that transcends any one particular religion.
It's interesting to me that both L'Engle and Rowling have been condemned (and L'Engle was banned) by conservative Christians for being too pagan or anti-Christian and at the same time others see them as overtly Christian. Can we have it both ways?
As for King's Cross, all I thought of was the tube; perhaps that points out a lack in my education!
And I must also admit that I don't read fiction as analytically as many of you do, so I may miss some of the subtleties that others pick up on. One reason that I hated literature classes as much as I love to read!
revdrmom,
I think there's a huge element of Christian privilege in the sorts of distinctions you're making -- which, btw, I made too, when I referred to pre-Christian sacrificial stories in the European tradition.
If I were a Jewish or Muslim parent, reading these stories to my kids, I have to suspect that the very act of reading the chapter title "King's Cross" out loud would evoke for me a whole host of theological and practical issues, some of which may already have given me parenting fits. And that would be BEFORE the story placed Harry in a waystation where one soul is suffering agonies while another prepares to move onward, and the nature of a young man's sacrificial death was being discussed, and the revelation that he hadn't really died was being made.
As it happens, I agree with you that Rowling's evocation of a sacrificial/resurrection narrative reflects a cultural viewpoint that doesn't necessarily have anything to do with Christianity (for Rowling or her British readership in particular, but all of us in a secular Western world in general). But I think that our ability to make that distinction, between Christianity and European cultural narratives, arises at least in part from the fact that we're insiders in that culture in a way that Jews and Muslims are not.
I'm not at all surprised that a book we identify as infused with Christian symbolism would be attacked by fundmentalist Christians for being anti-Christian. The very fact that European Christianity has become, for many, a cultural rather than a theological stance would naturally upset everyone from Pope Benedict to Jerry Falwell.
Jody, you may be right about the Christian privilege in my viewpoint, and the reference to King's Cross station. And perhaps that is reflected in the way I read that scene, too, as more like a near death experience--honestly what it reminds me most of is Meredith wandering around after she drowns in Grey's Anatomy. Now perhaps the very concept of a near death experience in which one has to "go foward" or go back to living is a Christian concept in ways that I hadn't really considered before either.
You know, I've been thinking more about what distinguishes Rowling from L'Engle on this particular issue. I think, as a non-Christian reader, I gave L'Engle my trust both because she was fairly upfront about what her wellsprings were, and because she always seemed conscious that there were other points of view present. Remember the scene after the children have seen the Dark Thing shadowing Earth, and Mrs. Whatsit is trying to hearten them by telling them a list of people who've fought the Dark Thing? Jesus is the first person on the list, but others on the list include Einstein and Buddha and Gandhi and Euclid. That meant the world to me as a child (as did the rabbi in Young Unicorns) -- it was as if L'Engle was telling me, "I know you're here, and you belong, too."
Rowling, on the other hand, introduced these Christian elements unexpectedly, and (to my mind -- obviously many if not most of you disagree!) heavy-handedly. As a non-Christian reader, I feel as though I've been suddenly kicked from the table without warning. But I suspect that Jody is quite right that a British author would simply not think of Christian elements as having that sort of effect, certainly not in the same way that a lifelong New Yorker would!
Anbruch, such a pleasure to see you in this conversation! You know, I had expected that Harry would have to sacrifice something fundamental to his identity in order to defeat Voldemort. I had imagined that his scar was the Horcrux, and after Voldemort's defeat Harry would be both scar-less and possibly diminished in his ability to perform magic. But your take, disenchantment, would have been breathtakingly powerful and moving.
To take things in a slightly different direction--what do people make of the fact that one of the Hallows was also a horcrux? And that it was apparently the first to be destroyed? And that it was the one most closely tied to the resurrection themes that have been there right from the first book?
As a no-longer-Christian person who was raised not just Christian but Episcopalian, and also steeped in British children's literature from a young age, I thought that the Christian imagery was there right from the beginning of book one, and it was more or less what I expected...goes with the territory, you know? So it didn't surprise me at all that it ended there.
She's not as smart about it as Pullman. But they're both writing in the shadow of Lewis, who was a theologian after all.
Sheila, The biggest aspect of the Horcruxes for me was Voldemort's failure to realize they were being destroyed until it was nearly too late. Of course that ties in with his failure to recognize the Hallow as he made it into a Horcrux. But it all ties in with the weaknesses Rowling imagines are "natural" to his form of evil.
I think it's odd, honestly, that a wizard so well-versed in esoteric black magic wouldn't have learned about the Hallows, or at least set out to learn more about Grindewald (given his antagonistic relationship with Dumbledore, you'd think Tom Riddle would want to know about this fellow who dueled him so famously). I thought the "he didn't know the basic fairy tales of the magic world" explanation was sufficiently evocative of the whole Muggle-Wizard divide, though, that I'm going to let it slide.
Jody--fairy tales, yes! A. and I were just talking about the symbolism of Dumbledore's bequest to Hermione: she is effectively an immigrant, he gives her the gift of the wizarding world's childhood culture. And trusts her to see and understand it in a way that Ron couldn't.
I liked finding out a little more about Harry's background -- interesting that he and Riddle were distant cousins through the Peverells. Interesting too that the Invisibility Cloak has such a history, after seeing it in all the books.
How about that power of mother love theme? Lily's sacrifice changed the world, it seems to me: it lived on in the veins of a man who found it absurd, and kept him from accomplishing what he'd aimed to do for almost 17 years. And Molly Weasley, taking out Bellatrix? That chokes me up still, that she went after Bellatrix when Bellatrix went after Ginny. (Yeah, I have some baggage about mother-daughter relationships.) Mrs. Weasley has always seemed endearing but ineffectual (shrieking at the twins as they go (went) blithely on their way making mischief), and I loved watching her say, and mean, "You will never touch our family again."
Jody, what did you think about the Harry-Ron rift and reconciliation? In the prediction thread, you were skeptical about my worry that Ron would betray Harry for money. Abandonment and betrayal are very different, and Ron's motivation was more than just material comforts, but I still felt like she'd been setting up that falling-out for a while. Did you buy it?
I loved the book. I laughed and laughed during the battle of Hogwarts, even though I was on the edge of my seat. During the wanderings in the woods I was groaning inwardly, "Where was your editor, JK?" But it works for me now that I've read the whole thing.
Okay, not to revive the theological King's Cross controversy (after I went and started it with an off-the-top-of-the-head remark) but I have to admit that it's been so long since I'd read the other books that I'd FORGOTTEN the Hogworts train leaves from King's Cross station. D'oh. I mean, I remembered it was platform 9&3/4 (um...right?), but I forgot the station.
I still think that titling the chapter like that was a little anvil-esque (and maybe I'm somewhat sensitized to Christ imagery in kids' fantasy after never having forgiven C.S. Lewis for pulling that one at the last minute), but it's less of a big deal now with that important reference in place.
And, yeah, I've lived in England, and it's true you stop thinking about the religious origins of many of the place names. But I agree with whoever above wrote that Rowling probably made that reference in that chapter very deliberately.
Also, thank you Jody for identifying the flayed child!
Jody, I agree about Voldemort's inability to identify the Hallows.
Sheila, I thought that it was actually smart to give Hermoine the book, of the three she would have totally read all the fairy tales over and over again while trying to learn about everything wizarding. Ron grew up with them and wouldn't have thought about them, and Harry never would have bothered to have read any of them before.
I sometimes wonder if authors read threads like this and slap their heads going "Hey, guys! You are SOOOO reading too much into this!"
Different tack for a minute.
I was talkign with a friend and reflecting that I would have liked to maybe see a few Slytherins stay and fight, other than Slughorn. Maybe have a few Slytherins return with him and Charlie at the end?
Because otherwise, the Sorting Hat's whole "we must pull together" theme seems to lapse at the end. Nineteen years later, kids are still worrying about being in Slytherin.
But OTOH, what brought Voldemort down, in the end, was two students' ability to look past the Slytherin/Griffindor divide, in however limited a fashion. Which is something, though not as much as I'd hoped for.
When will I learn to save my comments before hitting publish? Curse you, o Haloscan!
I'll try to reconstruct.
Sheila, I love your insight about giving the fairy tales to Hermione - it hadn't occurred to me and it makes perfect sense. And more sense that Voldemort had never heard of the Hallows, given his Muggle upbringing.
Elswhere, we took pictures of the kiddo at Platform 9 3/4 at King's Cross last year - they have a trolley set up halfway through the wall. I think Londoners definitely would associate Harry with the King's Cross station (lots of filming there, too), and that name with the station, as it was one bombed two years ago.
I do think Rowling also meant it as a Christian reference, but that doesn't bother me. Which isn't to say that it's not valid for anyone else to be bothered by it. But for me, it's her drawing on her tradition, just as Potok draws on his and Rushdie draws on his. Yes, Rowling's is the dominant tradition, but it is significant to her (she has said in interviews, long ago, that she is Christian but didn't want to say much about it or people would know where the story is going). I'm not going to have a problem reading it to the kiddo when he's older. But again, that's me. And Phantom, I did always like that L'Engle had the rabbi in Young Unicorns and the heroes from multiple traditions in Wrinkle.
Sara, I also missed having any Slytherins fight for Hogwarts. It was good to see Slughorn fighting, and I wish a student or two would've stayed with him. (Though think of the loneliness and fright of an anti-Voldemort Slytherin living with the Death Eaters' children all year . . .) Red Hen had an interesting essay on Slughorn and how he is probably like what more Slytherins were like before Riddle was in that House, and I hope/predict that Slytherin reverts to that type after Voldemort's defeat. (I wonder if any of the Death Eaters' children returned to Hogwarts?)
But it was good to see the change in Draco, and to a lesser extent, the other Malfoys. They found that what they had always wanted, a world ruled by Voldemort, was not what they wanted after all. Lucius mainly for selfish reasons, because he was maltreated and not given the respect he had anticipated (though also he worried about Draco). Narcissa because of her love for Draco. And Draco, though he was sadistic and cruel in smaller ways as a child, turned out after all not to take pleasure in cruelty and casual murder towards Muggles. Perhaps it was partly due to Dumbledore's mercy towards him, but think of the difference between Draco in Chamber, hoping Hermione is killed by the basilisk, and Draco when the trio is captured in Deathly Hallows, not wanting to identify them and not showing any relish in Hermione's capture. Also, he shows compassion (and some bravery, even) towards Goyle, pulling his unconscious body away from the Fiendfyre and supporting him. And he asked about Crabbe as soon as they were rescued. I think we really saw a significant evolution in him, and a more believable one than if he'd gone fully over to Harry's side and joined in the fight against Voldemort.
Did anyone read about JKR's recent comments? That Arthur Weasley was supposed to die in Book 5, but that she just couldn't do it?
I just finished re-reading, and one aspect I had been hoping for but didn't see was trips to Durmstrang and/or Beauxbatons-- that could have been really powerful and vivid, you know?
Also, I'm more and more happy with the wandering in the woods as a plot device-- it gave all the characters time to grow into themselves before the final battles. Hermione had to test a lot of the magic she had only known in theory before, and choose to stay in the quest no matter what. Ron had to finally face the insecurities that had hampered him through all the books, in Quidditch and in other relationships, and finally put them to rest. Harry had to learn how to follow his instincts and trust himself as a leader, and put his parents' death to rest as well. All those things had to happen before they could get into the real action of the quest.
Did the Hallows Quest remind anyone else of all the Holy Grail Quest mythology? Only the worthy can use it, many will pursue it but never really understand its power? Clues hidden throughout myths, to be pieced together?
Genevieve, I agree with you on the Malfoys--and yet I have such a hard time figuring out Draco in the RoR. He is so clearly reluctant to expose them to Voldemort earlier, what is he doing hurling killing curses later on? Is it because Voldemort isn't actually there, so his personal vendetta against Harry is no longer checked by his reluctance to assist in the humiliation of his family? But why take part in the battle on Voldemort's side at all?
Sheila, I don't think Draco hurled killing curses in the RoR. I think only Crabbe did that (at Hermione). Draco told Crabbe not to kill Harry because Voldemort wanted him alive, and Crabbe said he didn't have to listen to Draco anymore.
But it's true that Draco was there to help catch Harry. I should go back and re-read that part to see if he was triumphant or matter-of-fact or seeming like he'd been dragged along with Crabbe and Goyle.
Finally finished! Slow and busy! But I do have a few numbered thoughts:
1) In re: wandering in the woods. The problem was not the wandering per se. The problem was the repetitiveness for the reader. I agree that the characters needed to learn certain things, and that this was difficult, but it took up too much space in the book, period. I got bored. I found myself thinking, "They've had this exact conversation already" -- more than once. Not to mention "If I wrote a passage like this, where the characters are bored and frustrated and nothing happens, let alone many of them over a hundred-page stretch, my agent would kick my ass!"
2) Replied my husband: "Not if you'd sold millions of books he wouldn't!" So yeah, maybe I'm just jealous. Who knows?
3) In re: the pensieve. The problem, as I see it, is that if Snape had told him all that, Harry would not have believed it. Not that it wouldn't have been possible to reveal it all along, but that would have ruined the "surprise". Only it wasn't a surprise, so I don't know what she was worried about. But the most annoying thing about that scene, to my mind, was the timing. V has given you an hour to get your butt out to the forest -- how do you spend it?? Not going straight to the pensieve for some quality time with Snape's brain, that's for sure!
4) That said, I really felt for Snape, even if he was creepy right from the get go. Poor little obsessive peeping-Tom creep.
5) In re: all the Christianity. Heh. I have quite a LOT to say about this, from my fabulous atheistic angle, in fact. It will be a blog post, someday. For now, let me just say that she used the word "seek" in a sentence somewhere, and it suddenly dawned on me that Harry was the "seeker" (in both Quidditch and spiritual senses) and that just made me snort and giggle.
One other point I've been thinking about: that Harry's experience of living as a much loved child for a year (15 months?) affected him and gave him his ability to love and trust. I don't think that Snape ever had that, and Riddle certainly didn't.
I was thinking that without any major plot revisions re: the time in the woods, she could have made Snapes death and the revelations it brings a bit more meaninful by skipping the Pensieve and using Occumency/Legilmency again instead.
Harry has already been in Snape's head once. I can see dying Snape taunting him to read him, and Harry reading the memories Snape "feeds" to him as the life drains from him. It would have personalized it more, imparted the same information, and allowed Snape to die knowing that the message was passed on -- and to have the satisfaction of seeing Harry realize that he, too, was going to have to die -- and that his hurling "coward" at him at the end of the previous book (the last time they met) was completely mistaken.
Genevieve, thanks for clarifying my muddled reading of Draco.
We need more male pixies in here. ("Immobulus!")
More over at Brevity tomorrow, but I'd like to quote what shrinkykitten wrote above because it's just too awesome, and way better than any discussion of the book's merits:
Is there university in the wizarding world? An Oxwarts? A Hogbridge? I'd like to have seen Hermione go back, graduate, get a few advanced degrees, tour Europe, have a sexual awakening - see a few more men than Krum and Ron, maybe explore relationships with women, publish some articles in some wizarding journals, invent some things (a 13th use for dragon's blood? Or ways to do those things that don't hurt dragons?), create a union for house elves, maybe start a feminism movement for witches, start a blog, write the great British novel, and then - after she had a lot of experiences, then maybe find a partner and have or adopt a kid or two, while teaching at Hogwarts (where she starts a child care co-op) or maybe she could be a doctor at mundungos.
Best spinoff idea ever.
So very, very late to this convo, but I can't resist. I resisted buying the damned thing until yesterday, but then stayed up til 4am reading it and am now stuck in PPD (Post Potter Depression). Oh well.
So, for what it's worth (not too much, I admit!), my thoughts on the primary sticking points. Although first, I want to point out that just because I can appreciate where I think the author is coming from does not necessarily mean I enjoyed it or don't wish she'd chosen a different path, or that having to come from that direction doesn't mean she painted herself in a corner several books back:
The woods/not seeing Hogwarts: I think it's supposed to be repetitive and frustrating and dragging. That's the characters' experience. And as all the books have always centralized around Harry's POV, we can't know what's happening at Hogwarts. To me, no matter how much I want to know it, I can't. Because I'm in Harry's POV, and more than anything, he wants out of those effing woods and he wants to know what's happening at Hogwarts and he can't get out, can't find out. He feels like he's drowning and like time is slipping through his fingers and he can't make anything happen. The whole point is that he's powerless and rudderless, which makes it all the more difficult to decide to choose blind faith and the path of least control. Finally hearing familiar voices/news through the radio was actually a physical relief, and returning to Hogwarts felt surreal, as though they'd been gone a million years, not just 9 or 10 months. When did Nevil become this person? And COULD he have ever done with Harry there (doubtful).
Snape: I didn't want to see Harry learn this from Snape, or discuss it with Snape. What makes the Snape situation tragic is that he dies with Harry hating him--with EVERYONE hating him. He doesn't give Harry his memories to do anything other than fulfill his duty to give Harry the instruction to sacrifice himself. He isn't doing anything "for the greater good" or because he admires Harry or Dumbledore. He's only doing it because he loved a girl, and he effed up and she's dead because of it, and he'll do whatever he has to do to try and make ammends to her. One thing I do appreciate (and which was the least-liked thing about the whole King's Cross scene for me) is that Harry's relationship with all the men in his life is so full of uncertainty and regret. The only thing that *doesn't* feel right to me is the way he gets to tie things up with Dumbledore. That doesn't happen in real life. What happens is that you find out too late that you were wrong about someone, or that they weren't the saint you thought they were.
King's Cross: If you've spent a lot of time in London, and you want to go North, it's just a train station. I'm not saying the symbolism isn't built in, but my feeling, as someone who lived there, is that she probably sees it more as symbollic of his attachment to Hogwarts than a Christian symbol. Does that excuse the fact of being ignorant of the affect of the symbol on others? Not at all--but it's my guess that that's more the case. Or a nod to Narnia (which I DO find horribly, horribly heavy-handed. Now THAT'S a train station I just can't get behind.). Still, I didn't like this scene so much, simply because of the neat little wrap-up effect.
The epilogue--yeah, too much effort to go full circle there. The necessity of putting them at the train station again automatically means we're limited to the info we'd see there--which isn't going to be much about jobs, etc. It wasn't here nor there--if it's an insight into the grown-up characters, it doesn't give us enough info. If it's supposed to be a passing of the crown, it doesn't go far enough. Change the POV if you're going to do that--make it be one of the kids' POVs, then. The only part I liked about it was Malfoy--and not the others' reaction to him, just him.
Biggest pet peeve: Where the hell was Snape's portrait? That would have been the one thing that would have meant and said more than giving a kid his (middle) name and paying him one sentence of lip service. If I could change one thing about the book, that would be it. It absolutely should have been there, and it should have been there when Harry walked in to look into Snape's memories: Harry might not have known yet about Snape, but Hogwarts would have done.
Lupin/Tonks: Meh. Throw away, and not really sure for what good purpose.
So, overall...heavy handed? Written into a corner? Copping out on several items? Clunky and/or insensitive imagery? Guilty as charged on all pnts, I think, but not untrue to its own mythology or set of universal laws (for the most part). I did bawl in several places, and feel heart-sick that it's over. Harry was like my baby. I'm glad he's safe and happy, but I'll miss that kid.
In an interview, Rowling said more about what everyone's doing in the future. She also said that she had a lot of that in a more detailed epilogue, but it didn't work well.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19959323/
Harry and Ron are Aurors, and Harry is the head of the department. They've revolutionized the department. Hermione works for the Department of Magical Law Enforcement. The MoM has undergone a lot of reform and is a much better place to work now. Luna is traveling the world looking for "various mad creatures."
I know that you were probably not speaking directly to me in your comment, PK, but, yes, I understand that it's supposed to be repetitive and frustrating and dragging in the woods because that's Harry's experience. It's that I thought it was a lousy idea to make the narrative reflect Harry's emotional state at such length. She could have made the point much more briefly with one repetitive, frustrating, dragging chapter, and she wouldn't have diluted our emotional response in the slightest by doing so. It's my personal opinion that an author -- any author -- needs to have a really, really, really good reason to subject a reader to narrative frustration and tedium, and I don't think "that's how Harry was feeling" was a good enough reason.
As for the point of view objection, Rowling does abandon Harry's POV when she needs to (for example, the first chapter of HP6, or through magical devices like the Pensieve), so I don't think she was boxed in on that one except to the extent that she wanted to be.
Also, I disagree that it's tragic that Snape died hated by everyone. Snape WANTED to be hated by everyone -- he made Dumbledore promise to "never reveal the best of you." It would have been far more powerful and tragic if we had gotten to see Snape living -- even momentarily -- with the knowledge that Harry had finally found out the best of him -- if he'd had to interact with Harry one last time knowing that Harry empathized with him. Because that would have opened Snape up to the possibility of loving one last time. (Plus I think it would have made a sign of Harry's maturation much more striking than any of the other things we were given.)
Hey PS, yep, *totally* not directed at any one person. Just, you know, thinking out loud. And I understand your points as well--heck, everyone's really. Totally not a Disagreement Comment, just a Throw In My 2 Cents
Comment.
I guess I see Snape's idea that it was preferable to be hated than to be humiliated or rejected or whatever was part of the tragedy to me. Tragic pride, etc. But as I said--totally see your point, too.
Oh, I see what you're saying about tragic pride. Quite so, really.
Phantom - your last Snape point is why I would have vastly preferred those memories to have been Legilmensed out of him rather than Pensieved. I know it would not have allowed for the last trip back to Hogwarts to see the tally of the dead, and it would have made the "I have to get away from Ron and Hermione to do this" harder... but actually, both of those might not have been bad things. The action could have gone immediately to the showdown with Voldy and cut an entire chapter.
And that last meeting of the eyes would have been with full knowledge on both sides about what it meant, and been more of a redemptive moment - for both of them.
Yeah, the more I think about it, the more I like your Legilmensed idea, Sara.
That would've been really lovely, indeed!
The missing portrait makes me crazier the more I think about it.
No idea if anyone is still reading here, but I like what the last few comments have said about Snape. All the pre-book debate about whether he was good or evil...really to me he ended up being ambiguous. Yes, he fulfilled his promises to Dumbledore, took care of Hogwarts, made sure Harry got the info, but I'd be willing to bet that he'd have been ready to return to the dark side if Voldemort had won. He never did sever his ties with them, and there would've been no one to give him away as having been a "double agent."
Ooo, revdrmom, that's so devious! I never thought of that. Probably comes of having read the last 2 or 3 HP books in a sleepless daze--doesn't make me the most thoughtful analyst.
Ohh, yes revdrmom! I agree. He was good, but only grudgingly.
That's teh brilliant, revdrmom!
Also, I think it's safe to assume that people will keep reading and chiming in as they each finish the book in turn.
Not only did I finally finish the book, but I just read every comment in this thread too. So...
1. Liked the wondering in the woods. Being a dissident is not fun, and isn't supposed to be. Mostly it's a lot of running around or hiding, and that can make you stir-crazy.
2. Loved that all that was needed for V to control most of the wizarding world was to take over the large bureaucracy and media. Thought it obvious, and then realized that for most readers it wouldn't be. Those who did not grow up in countries where you had jokes about your media that could lend you in jail, I mean.
3. Mudblood trials. That was not fascist-- they didn't really bother. That was stalinist, and pretty damn well-done.
3. Not to brag or anything, but I read the prophesy right the first time. And endured years of people telling me I was off my rocker. So there.
4. Also, Snape. Had him figured out right, although not all the way to the exact time Dumbledore told him what he'd have to do. Figured it was on that walk. But of course promising Narcissa makes more sense if he already knew. BUT, and this is big for me, I was really hoping that he would have to force Harry to look into his mind to verify his words. I really wanted Harry to understand that what Snape is saying at the end of book 6 is that "i have had to do things you can't even imagine to keep your ass alive. I just had to kill the one man who actually knew me, you little git," and to have to look at Snape after that. But of course that also means that Snape would have to look at Harry after he knew about his love for Lily. Or the idea of Lily (love the point above about parallels with Snape and Petunia re:Lily). Didn't think of dying breath occlumency-- would've been pretty cool.
5. Neville blossoming. Was sure it was coming. It had to happen (and was building for a while now) because it shows that Voldemort's choice of which boy to deem his undoing was likely irrelevant-- with guidance Neville could easily have done what Harry did. Also, Neville is a true Griffindor (sword in the hat), and he gets to join a very elite group of horcrux destroyers: Harry (diary), Dumbledore (ring), Ron (locket), Hermione (cup), and Neville (snake). Diadem was an accident, and Harry catching it was so we get to see that yes, it's destroyed. So Neville gets the status of basically very close to Ron and Hermione.
6. Lupin and Tonks-- knew they were gonners as soon as she showed up. But knew he was done for as soon as Harry got named godfather. Teddy is Harry and Neville, but loads better off-- growing up with grandma and way cool godfather.
7. Deaths in the battle-- fair and well done. It's war, and there is not a neat leading up. Fred dying as he was being happy to hear the old Perce-- that was a nice move. Lupin and Tonks dying off camera-- also fair.
8. Tonks leaving a kid. It didn't sit well with me. But then I realized that NOW I wouldn't do it. Because I had a chance to see not only how much my children mean to me, but to glance how much I mean to my living child. I don't think same can be expected of a first-time mom in the middle of the biggest crisis in living memory. And she has been cooked up in the house throughout pregnancy-- she might have not been able to hang back. Lily Potter, on the other hand, was forced to hide BECAUSE someone was after her child. She got to think all of these thoughts many times over. She got to contemplate living without him, and she knew that she would do whatever it took to not have to.
9. As suggested by Jody, figuring out for himself that he needs to die would've been cooler. But what I am concerned about is that the Getsemeny scene would then be very denominational, shall we say...
10. Didn't grow up with any religious observance, but did read Greek and Roman mythology. Which is probably why even as I notice Christian references, I am not annoyed at them as the proprietor of these here very awesome digs. My annoyance exists mostly on the level that if there is this reference, than the plot device coming up is sure to be along these here lines...
But she fooled me a little. As soon as they said repentance pulls the soul back, I thought Dumbledoe made one in his youth and then repented for it.
I am probably missing loads, but my brain hurts, so I am off to do chores and turn in for the night.
I loved what revdrmom had to say about Snape just up there. A friend recently described him as chaotic neutral and I thought that fit too - he isnt necessarily good OR bad, just a product of his neuroses and context.
I think Snape would probably have gone back if Vmort had won... but....
Where I fall down in that reason is this: he did it all for Lily, in her memory. Saving her son to "complete her job," as it were.
But when he finds out that they've been saving him so that he can just die at the right time, he still keeps to the program. That's the point at which someone who was truly neutral (in the D&D good-neutral-evil continuum) would have said, "Okay, this was fun, but its no longer accomplishing my personal goals here."
I've been wondering. If there is some kind of afterlife in the wizarding world in which people meet up again, and there seems to be, since all the dead people we met seemed to be up on events in the living world-- what on earth will Lily and Severus have to say to each other? There's a fanfic waiting to be written...
Sara, and also-- what would James and Sirius have to say to Severus? And how would he take it?
Rowling answered a lot of questions in an on-line chat with Bloomsbury, with a rough transcript posted here:
http://www.the-leaky-cauldron.or...chat- transcript
After having spent FOREVER reading all these comments (lol), I just had to throw my two cents in re: the Christian debate. Having spent most of my life as an (American) atheist virulently opposed to any hint of anyone trying to shove Christianity down my throat (being raised Catholic, I was frankly sick of it by age 10), I have to admit that the whole King's Cross thing meant nothing to me other than a railway station. I've always thought of the "Cross" part as coming from crossing. It is, after all, a transit station. I did at first think the whole sacrifice/resurrection thing smacked of Christian tradition, but then realized that I only thought that b/c Christianity's such a major religion and therefore one with which I was familiar. That particular religious theme was around well before Christianity ever emerged, and will be around well after it declines, so it didn't bother me at all.
Oh, and I was disappointed not to find out what the main characters were doing in the epilogue, but otherwise I rather liked the knowledge that Harry finally got his "normal" life, complete with loving family and friends. And then I saw Rowling's interview where she talked about the Trio's careers, so I was happy, lol.
Interesting analysis of Snape and Love here:
http://rexluscus.livejournal.com...com/
254445.html
It gets at what I've been thinking around a lot - the fact that the Lily he loved was really more of an idea than a person, and that to continue on with the plan once he learned what its final result would be meant he was, at some level, doing it all for different reasons than he had been at the start.
Random thought: anyone else think that Harry should have used the Resurrection Stone on Moaning Myrtle, so she could take revenge on Voldemort herself?
Just me? Okay.
Neel!
Best. idea. ever!
Okay... I just finished yesterday (damn bar!).
I hated this book, the more I think about it. I was glad to read it, I enjoyed bits of it, but on the whole I hated it.
First, this book should have taken place at Hogwarts. Had Rowling kept up with her "writing to the grade-level of Harry" idea I felt was in her first books, then she'd be writing to Jr/Sr high school kids (and the equivalent in the UK). Fabulous. Time for some darkness.
But time to stay in school, okay?
I think that this book would have been VERY cool to have continued with the underground rising of You Know Who and all the secret planning and running about. Bring the kids back to school (dudes, I felt *so* betrayed by this book being out of the confines of Hogwarts), and use the WORKING timetable of having some problems up until Christmas-time when all hell breaks loose.
Also, bringing Harry under Snape's control (with Harry being one of VERY few who *knew* Snape killed Dumbledore) could have led to some cool as hell power dynamics.
Frankly, a cheezy moment when Snape looks into Harry's eyes, say when he's punishing him with a Crucitacious (or whatever) curse, and *SEES* Lily there, and transforms. That coulda been cool (and made for Excellent use of Alan Rickman). Some big "I always loved you Lily!" or some schmaltz (can be good if used properly, come on!!)
I had no issues with Tonks leaving her baby with her mom because she had to tend to very important personal business. Frankly, I sent my daughter off to my mom when I took the bar. Maybe not as serious of a battle as good vs. evil, but it's in the same vein (I'm not going to be able to take care of you until this is done, so my mom who raised me right will probably do you one better than I can right now). Also, I imagine there is some charm or spell that would bring forth the necessary mode of feeding for an infant wizard? I dunno.
Moving all this back to Hogwarts also puts Hermione back into HER element and leaves space for Ginny and Neville to be major players. All the mischief goes on AROUND H/R/H rather than being led by them. Turning Ginny into a serious leader would have been nice - a balance to Hermione. Snape keeps punishing Harry, as revenge against James, but it's really Ginny/Neville who are leading the mischief.
And then you get some wicked cool show-down between Draco and Harry where they realize at the end they're on the same side. Someone else pointed out that being a Slytherin ought to be a road into the Ministry, rather than a road into Death Eaters. So you have this Draco fighting to be a good, pureblood leader of wizards; Harry fighting to be this good wizards sent forth to help all mankind. In the end, they find common ground, and that's how Draco flips away from the Dark Side.
I'm glad Molly and McGonnagall had nice scenes in the end. But JKR didn't use McGonnagall enough through the entire series, and especially in this last book. I wanted McGonnagall to become Hermione's "witch-mother" if you will - someone who becomes a surrogate somehow to Hermione, and allows her to develop that kinship.
Okay, that's what I think for now. Well that, and whoever pointed out the sloppy copy-editing at the end of the book (which is just plain annoying!).
Having exposed DevilMacDawg to all this commentary, I feel like I've swayed her opinion from "generally liked" to "generally hated". For that, I'm sorry.
Still, I agree with pretty much everything she said. McGonagall was criminally underused, but I don't know how much of that is the awesome Maggie Smith (that confrontation with Imelda Staunton in movie #5!) and how much of it is in the pages.
I would have liked to see Harry and Snape at some form of detente early on, with Harry learning things through reverse Legilimency or something. This way Snape has only himself to blame as he slowly and reluctantly gives in to Harry's seductive eyes, releasing the truth about his love for Lily. (Somehow I have the feeling that such a face-off is currently being written in the world of slash fan fiction, if not already done. And yeah, eww.)
Wow. I had to skim toward the end of these comments. JUST now finished. I got it over a week ago, and couldn't start until Sunday. Somehow, i was able to put this one down, where the others I read in a gulp.
I liked that Snape wasn't all evil. Because he should have been ---being a children's book and all---but he wasn't.
I admit my cultural immersion, and I didn't catch any of the Christianity stuff until King's Cross, and then I was pissed because, well, I knew then how the story would end, and I still had 80 pages to go. I'm obviously rather fond of the Christian story, making it my career and all, but I was so bummed---I mean, i've READ that book. And now I fear I'm going to have to hear 9 million sermon examples taken from HP7.
I missed Hogwarts. I'm a dork. I like school.
It was my least favorite of the HPs, but I still liked it.
I'm obviously rather fond of the Christian story, making it my career and all, but I was so bummed---I mean, i've READ that book.
Oh my. I think PPB just took the lead in the Best. Comment. Ever. sweepstakes.
Ah Neel - you didn't take me from like to hate. I just slept on it. I *tried* to like it. I tried to convince myself that my dislike was more of the contrarian in me coming out rather than something genuine. It just was all wrong to me, and the longer I muddle it over in my mind, the more I dislike it. Mr. Mac and I intend to discuss tomorrow on our drive down to the beach, and I'll probably put more comments here, there and everywhere about how much I love it or something soon. I'm so fickle. I just really do feel strongly that some important (and cool!) characters were underused. Further, I feel that their roles in the films will be limited by their underuse in the base stories. In the end, my dislike of this book is somewhat tempered by my genuine like of the major characters and what/who they represent to me.
And can someone tell me why 'underused' is a word, and 'underuse' is not.
Like ppb and a few others, I didn't see the Christian overtones in the Holy Cross station (just the train station in my mind). Maybe a Roman Catholic's notion of purgatory thing, but more like Harry's knocked out and dreaming. My opinion.
Actually, I DID see the Christian imagery--beginning at King's Cross--just not before then.
Funny. I saw the Christian stuff, but not in King's Cross. I guess I assumed that to be monarchist and historical, although certainly monarchy and theology have had a long love affair the world over.
I'm not Christian in the slightest, but I'm not... hurt by Christianity specifically, either. The Bible and Torah are in most of my literature, and I'm okay with it from most writers unless they're really Jesus-y.
(That said, and I deeply, deeply hated Narnia until blood flew out my nose. Yes. THAT much. What. Ever. Dude.)
I didn't/don't read HP that closely. However, these comments make me rather amazed by her: I rather think she made some magic in that people DO care this much. Almost as if she were Tolkien. (*g*). I do remember HP7 in a way that I don't remember HP5 and 6, which I forgot after I put them down. So Horcruxes were a bit of a surprise for me.
(I remember Snape killing Dumbledore, and thinking, shit. I want to see lots of Rickman in all the movies. But that's because I like mildly Gothic semi-wicked dudes to objectify or something. Rickman, man. Before Rickman came around, Snape looked like a weasel to me, and I didn't really care about his moral status because he was such a dink. In the end, he's still a dink, whether or not he was protecting Harry.)
So: Better than 5 and 6, for me, and I thought she did very well for something that is another populist retelling of Armeggedon (sp?) fantasy, creating characters real enough that they were people we cared about. I rather loved that Dumbledore's complexity was greater than Gandalf's, and in the woods I wondered if the world was going to end while they were wandering about and whether they'd pass the time by getting Hermione pregnant, but it didn't kick me out of the story other than to laugh at the idea. ( -- And then! Oh my god! Hermione's your sister and Voldemort's in her too! See? Fun!)
With a name like Arwen, I read everything with LoTR in mind. I don't, therefore, mind the allusions much. I suppose that's like a Christian reading Narnia, though.
As a supplement to Tolkien, she's done herself proud.
Not s'posed to read it like that? Ooops!
Or to sum up: I think JKR put people where people usually aren't, and that's her genius, and it was definitely functional here; and she made protagonists out of Hermione and Neville and Ron where protagonists usually aren't, because any one of them are as important in the bigger picture as Harry (minus the on-board demon), which is revolutionary; and because of that, she's bigger than a hack and made something to be proud of.
I mean, most supporting characters are supporting, and our Hero Uses Them To Achieve His Glorious Aims. I thought that wasn't what was happening here, and she offered something new where the supporting characters were the protagonists of their own stories. That's a lot of story.
Specifics don't bug me as much, because it's not a book I wish to have written, excepting for maybe the rafts of money.
From The Onion (link):
Final Harry Potter Book Blasted For Containing Spoilers
NEW YORK — Harry Potter fans throughout the world were shocked, disappointed, and outraged to learn last week that J.K. Rowling's 750-page novel, Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, blatantly answers every looming question in the 10-year-long saga, even going so far as to divulge what happens to key characters 20 years into the future.
"The whole experience is completely ruined for me," said 25-year-old fan Ethan Clay, adding that the book builds up suspense, and then, without warning, gives away vital, plot-altering information. "The least [Rowling] could have done was put a spoiler alert or something on the front cover."
I imagine there is some charm or spell that would bring forth the necessary mode of feeding for an infant wizard?
Of course! The Domperidonius charm. (Ironically, I am typing this comment while nursing a stuffed Pat the Bunny at my 2yo's behest.)
CJ, I think it might take more than some Domperidone for you to feed that stuffed rabbit with your breasts....
[Ah, the days when my kids wanted me to open my nursing bra for their toys....]
I have to agree with Phantom on teh funny comment from PPB. But I have to disagree with PPB on the substance (I know-- teh party pooper)-- it's not the same story. Harry couldn't do what needed to be done alone. Neville did something Harry once did, only in arguably harder circumstances, and Molly did what no one ever was able to do. Harry couldn't do either of those things, and it wasn't his place to do them.
The wands thing. I imagine we are supposed to not see it as an accident because "expeliarmus" is seen as Harry's signature move (which he got from Snape-- how perfect is that?), but how was getting caught not an accident? And what if Ron disarmed Draco? In the end, alone in a room full of his enemies, with not one horcrux left, how hard was Voldemort to take down? He was successfully defending against 3. What about 10? 30? Yes, Harry got to finish him off, and to tell a nice story in the process. But I don't think he had to anymore.
200th pixie! Take that, ladies!
Now that I've started re-reading the series, I'm paying more attention to JKR's writing style. Apparently, so has Jeopardy! champ Ken Jennings, who came up with a fascinating theory:
"...I’d like to take a minute to celebrate Harry Potter not as bildungsroman, modern mythology, political allegory, or cultural phenomenon. Instead, I read the Harry Potter books as enormously sophisticated Scooby-Doo mysteries..."
Read on and learn his conclusion as to what the adult Harry, Ron, and Hermione do for a living.
Oh my goodness! I'd forgotten this thread existed...Finally got to the book (last in line in the family...grrrrr) a couple of weeks back, but no time to think or blog about it.
Main reaction, having read all the 200 comments - I wish you could all collaborate on a re-write. There are so many ideas I'd love to see developed...and tbh, Rowling's style while readable has begun to pall a little.
Being English, have to say that I'd never even thought of Kings Cross as Christian symbol...there are market crosses in the centre of so many towns...any religious significance long since lost. It's just a station. Honest. But there was an actual and loud and noticeable quotation from your actual Bible
"Where your treasure is, there is your heart also" (or thereabouts) which was a pretty firm give-away.
Lots of reservations, all voiced by different people in the thread already...but all in all a good read, though not a volume I would pluck from my shelves to rescue in case of fire!
'Just popping in here to wish you and your family well. I've been rereading the series and remembering your speculation threads and spoiler threads here. All the best to you.
Commenting by HaloScan
