Finished

[altivo]

Well, I got to the end of Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows. I had to find out what she did with the story, though I also have to say that on the whole I was pretty disappointed. There was a lot of promise in the first three books, but mostly it has been a downhill road from there. The loose ends and incredible number of deus ex machina events in the last volume were quite distracting. She did manage to resolve the big issues of course, and tie it all together even if some of the strings were tenuous.

Personally I find Severus Snape quite as unbelievable as he is unsympathetic, right to the very end. Alas, Albus Dumbledore began to grate on me two volumes ago and I now find him almost reprehensible for his manipulative and know-it-all behavior. The character who really grows in the course of the series, even more than Harry, seems to be Neville Longbottom. And the one who never grows up? Ronald Weasley. What Hermione sees in him is beyond my comprehension. Ultimately, my favorites are Luna Lovegood and Minerva McGonagle.

One has to read the last three volumes in order to get the whole story, such as it is. Don't fall into the error of thinking that the movies will suffice. They can't. The number of details needed to pull the whole thing together is staggering, and film being what it is, 90% of them are already being left out in favor of exaggerated romance and action scenes.

Anyway, I can cross that off the list now and get on with other stuff. (Like maybe the next Terry Pratchett book.)

Comments

[dongstyle-ltd.livejournal.com]

Heh, well done at least for reading it. I allowed myself to get carried away with the process of reading as the stories themselves were readable enough (well...given due allowances for some almost fatal problems...I mean, eight months of aimless wandering around proved to be a difficult task and left me feeling disoriented), if the writing slightly uninspiring. However I'm confident I won't ever feel compelled to pick the HP books up again, for the reasons you cite. I admit Snape's story was almost a tear jerker of sorts due to a cumulative effect of guilt over thinking so poorly of him when his motives were, apparently, the "most noble of them all" or something, though by this time the debate had been dragged out so long I didn't react very much.

I think quite a number of people (at least the ones I know that had actually read the whole thing) agree with you, myself included: Dumbledore had also fallen out of my favor by Order of the Phoenix. All of my friends think that the Weasly-Grainger pairing was a marriage of authorial convenience, Luna's complete earnestness is endearing, and as for McGonagal, you go girl!

Unlike most of my HP geek friends, though, I also agree with you that the movies will never be able to cover the scope of the stories, especially given the direction they have taken, and therefore are pretty much a complete waste of time for anybody who isn't specifically into the HP universe. I almost enjoyed Philosopher's Stone, was getting jaded by Chamber of Secrets and simply couldn't sit through any of the films after that. It will be interesting, however, to see if any more will be made, and if so, just how they might turn out (and how the public would react to 3+ hours of constant incoherency and content certainly not suitable for a PG rating).

[altivo.livejournal.com]

Oh, they'll make the remaining films I'm sure. The contracts are already signed, sealed, and partially paid for. There's a huge audience for the films, many of whom have never read the books and never will. Reading is, alas, dying out in our world culture.

[dongstyle-ltd.livejournal.com]

Given that reading in "popular" circles really only made a big impact among the upper classes from, say, the era of Jane Austen, how much of a golden age of reading was there?

That's not the most relevant of questions but I feel like I need a bit of scope. The basic lament, however, remains the same: reading seems to struggle in relative popularity because it actually requires one to use their frontal cortex.

[altivo.livejournal.com]

The concept of the popular novel does largely date to the time of Jane Austen or a little before (Samuel Richardson, to be more precise, who also gets credit for the idea of a "series" of novels each of which depends on the previous for background.) Before Austen, novels were generally thought of as "rubbish" that existed to occupy the limited minds of young and foolish women, and most were the equivalent of today's pulp romance novels.

All that quickly changed in the early 1800s with the advent of authors like Jane Austen, the Bronte sisters, George Eliot, and Charles Dickens. Now novelists were using fiction to comment upon major social and political issues, and their work began to be taken more seriously. Before that, reading fiction was considered a frivolous waste of time. After that change, however, it was a perfectly respectable thing to do, provided that the author in question was considered to be a "serious" writer.

In the US, I think reading as a pastime has been declining since World War II, but the decline has accelerated more rapidly since about 1980. Americans have fallen into the "cool media" trap and replaced, as you point out, activities that require active thought with those that can be passively absorbed (film, television, videogames.)

[flaredragon.livejournal.com]

Picked up the book from the library monday afternoon.
Finished reading it this morning.

My thoughts are such that a lot of the book is overplayed... the same "heres a multi part puzzle that gets slowly revealed through the book", the same overplayed reactions and emotions... it turned into a comedy of errors where at the end Harry has everything and puts it away like a good comic book hero.

No idea why they even bothered with the Epilogue, it was practically worthless except for the sentimental folks.

Needed more centaurs, stags, and does. =x Maybe some Thestrals for good measure?

[altivo.livejournal.com]

Yes, I agree about the epilogue. If it had to be there, I'd have preferred to see the scene through someone else's eyes. Luna's perhaps, or Neville's.

The character of Snape simply doesn't work for me. Dolores Umbridge, though, needed closure that we never got. If she survived and continued to spread slime over the wheels of the Ministry after really good people like Lupin and Moody were gone, then there is really no justice at all in the world of HP.

Glad to see I'm not the only one who delayed reading until all the furor was over. It's an interesting coincidence that we got to it at the same time though.

[flaredragon.livejournal.com]

Really that just shows you how long it takes me to make it to the library. *laughs*

[avon-deer.livejournal.com]

I have not read any of the books in the series. From the outside looking in, I'd say your disappointment stems from the phenomenon of "franchise pushing". Where an author/writer/designer (delete where appropriate), does not know when to stop making re-incarnations of the same format of book/TV series/video game* (delete where appropriate). It is common to say that the sequels are never as good as the first book/film/video game. I think three books in a series is about the ceiling. Anything more than this, and plot holes are bound to be become more noticeable, and characters less appealing.

[altivo.livejournal.com]

Oh, I can still recommend the books. The ideas and storyline are basically good. The execution just isn't that of a master writer. The books are infinitely better than the films, honestly.

Some authors can pull off an endless series and get away with it. Pratchett comes to mind, for instance. Certainly some of his books are better than others, and some have holes and defects, but he hasn't run the concept into the ground yet. On the other hoof, Frank Herbert's Dune and Isaac Asimov's Foundation have been run into the ground and buried. McCaffrey's Pern stories did well for quite a bit longer than just three volumes, but as she has aged her abilities seem to have declined.

The franchising in the case of HP seems almost entirely to have come from the films, and those (except perhaps for the first one) have been abominations. However, the obvious greed of the author and her army of lawyers certainly disinclines me toward anything further that she may decide to do.

[avon-deer.livejournal.com]

I loved the first few books of the "Dune" series, but his son has just made a hash of it.

I think the same can be said for TV shows as well, like "Red Dwarf". Quit while you're ahead, guys.

[hrrunka]

I think Pratchett manages to pull it off at least in part because he isn't worried about completing some grand story arc over the course of umpteen books. Each book is a story of its own. Some refer back to earlier books, and of course the characters have developed from book to book, but for the most part each book could be picked up and read as a single stand-alone work.

Dune I stuck with for three novels, and decided to abandon after the fourth. Foundation really didn't need to be tied-in with all Azimov's other work. Pern is a mixed bag of books. Some work well for me, and others don't. Mostly the early ones work better than the later ones. I prefer the ones which don't try too hard to be Science Fiction.

The Harry Potter books will likely be ones I won't re-read.

[altivo.livejournal.com]

Well, Prisoner of Azkaban is actually my favorite of the seven books. I really like the characters of Remus Lupin and Sirius Black, more actually than I care for any of the main protagonists. Of course, she killed them both off before the end which was quite a disappointment.

Snape, on the other hand, I could just do without. Most of the time he's just a cookie-cutter bad guy, yet we are supposed to believe that he was really on the side of good and in the service of Dumbledore. I just don't accept that. He took too much obvious pleasure in interfering with the Gryffindors, and tried just a little too hard to be a "good" deatheater. A childhood crush on Potter's mother isn't enough to make this stuff believable at all.

[hellmutt.livejournal.com]

Agreed on Lupin and Sirius, at least in Prisoner of Azkaban. Lupin's romance with Tonks came completely out of left field. Tonks herself resembled nothing more than a fan character... anyway.

With Snape it was increasingly obvious that he would turn out to be Good All Along. The more Harry hated him and suspected him of various wrongdoings on shaky evidence and against Dumbledore's instruction, the more I impatiently tapped my fingers and said "Yes, yes, and?" It had the result that I was actually surprised in book 6 when Harry proved right in suspecting Malfoy, because I was expecting a few more levels.

I also noted that, discounting Snape and Sirius and possibly Quirrell, all the baddies are disliked by Harry immediately and everyone he disliked was a baddie. The nice upshot with Kreacher didn't mitigate that enough.

[altivo.livejournal.com]

That's the problem with Snape. Even after it's all told, I can't find enough motivation for him to be "good". He simply wasn't. He was playing both sides to try to find a position of greatest advantage, and not committed to either side in my opinion.

The excuse of his teenage crush on Lily Evans just isn't enough to explain his behavior in any serious way, and though it might justify his dislike of James Potter, it also fails to explain his attitude toward Harry.

People in that situation in real life are more typically very devoted to the surviving child of the lost object of their affection or lust. Snape's attitude toward Harry wasn't an act, he clearly meant what he did.

[hellmutt.livejournal.com]

He was not a nice guy, and that wasn't an act, and it wasn't particularly necessary to any grand plans. Even Dumbledore was only distant, not spiteful, when he was trying to distance himself from Harry. I don't know how realistic I find Snape's motivations (or anyone's!) but I certainly wouldn't have named any kids after him.

Dumbledore's implication that he should've been a Gryffindor (and that that was 'better' than Slytherin) annoyed me disproportionately...

[altivo.livejournal.com]

The idea the Gryffindor is "better" than Slytherin was a theme that prevailed throughout all seven books, actually. For Dumbledore to state it outright was no surprise, though I don't think we ever heard which house Dumbledore himself had belonged to, did we?

Slytherin seems characterized by a "desire for greatness" as the sorting hat delicately put it, but that really means "me first" when you look at the Slytherins themselves. That and, of course, the pureblood thing that goes right back to old Salazar himself.

Gryffindor is leadership and concern for "the greater good" which fits Dumbledore's later outlook in life, but not necessarily his school years.

Ravenclaw is intellect. Hufflepuff is the loyal "team player."

[hellmutt.livejournal.com]

And to my mind (not that I agree with sorting based on personality at all; whose idea was it to put all the individualists together?) the houses are all roughly equal, with the stated personality traits having no bearing on which clique is morally best.

Rowling obviously favoured Gryffindor throughout, yes. I think that was understandable in book one (when you're twelve-thirteen, these things matter), but where I think she should have been introducing a more and more nuanced view as her readers grew up with her, instead it devolved into "yay Gryffindor, star quality heroes whom everyone loves, boo Slytherin, all potential Death Eaters". Insulting for the individualists among us, of whom I'm one (Slytherclaw pride!).

Even the Sorting Hat expresses its doubts about the house system - and I would have loved to see that theme picked up and run with! Maybe even some long-standing lessons learnt and changes made. Instead, one epilogue later, nothing seems different, except that Harry Learned A Valuable Lesson About Tolerance (but Gryffindor's still best, yay).

[altivo.livejournal.com]

Whose idea? The founders of the school. The sorting hat explained it all once. Each founder selected the students he or she felt were most suitable, and each chose those who were most like him or herself.

I like to think I'm open minded, but I don't have a very high opinion of Slytherin myself. Perhaps it's because Rowling only showed us negative examples, of course. But all we have to go by is what she gave us. The other three houses are fine and I really wouldn't say one is better than another. The idea behind Slytherin (if you omit the pureblood prejudice) is probably all right, but in practice it doesn't work.

[hellmutt.livejournal.com]

I know it was the founders' idea, yep. It was a rhetorical question because I think the idea of putting all cooperative people together, all individualists together, all clever people together and all solid-skulled wannabe-heroes together is a really silly way to run a school. It's good news for Ravenclaws, not for anyone else. If it had been all people who like oranges, or something like that, fair enough, but they're sorting based on the very things that need to be mixed up to create a cohesive group.

I don't believe a quarter of all children in England (or anywhere) are potential Death Eaters. Well, OK, Stanley Milgram proved that just about anyone may condone or take part in some nasty things if an authority figure says so. But the Slytherins we see, behaving like spoilt little hate machines entirely uncoerced? I don't believe 25% of people are like that, so the entire house being like that isn't plausible. (Yes, this is the guy who was bullied by rich popular kids throughout high school and hates humanity as a result talking... I'm surprised too.)

Overanalysing? Why, I believe I am. :)

[altivo.livejournal.com]

Actually, more than 25% of the population can be like that under the right circumstances. Just for example, look at the way Jews were treated in Germany in the 1930s, or the way Muslims were treated in the US right after 9/11. Many will at least pretend to go along with what they perceive as the majority in order to avoid being targeted themselves.

I'd point out too that it wasn't just the Slytherins who turned against Harry at various times, most notably the situation at the beginning of his sixth year after the Ministry had been running its "Potter is a Nutter" campaign all summer. At that point, even members of his own house were opposing him. The Slytherins, however, were always anti-Harry. And, I would say, this was largely due to Malfoy's attitudes and the fact that he was extremely influential, combined with Snape's own negative treatment of Harry.

[wolfgrowl.livejournal.com]

She's sort of a latter day Enid Blyton I guess. I read the first book when I was visiting Calgary prior to going out on a dig in the badlands. This was at the request of a friend who felt his son was missing a cultural phenomenon and didn't want him to be left out. A bit of a compliment as he said his son would read it if I did. I was meeting them for lunch that day so I went shopping, bought a copy, read it, and gave it to his son at the restaurant. Not terrible, light, whimsical, and I understand why its popular. Children can empathize with the ordinary boy made extraordinary! Anything that gets youngsters to enjoy reading is a good thing.

I'm currently reading "Wolf Captured" by Jane Lindskold. *lol* Go figure. This is the fourth in the series and one of the characters is a very cool wolf. I met her and her husband when she was GOH at FC and they were very nice, personable people. Anyways I'm into about the first third of the book, and they may well be introducing some equines. We will see.

[altivo.livejournal.com]

People have recommended Lindskold to me before but I haven't been sure where to start. I did pick up one book a while ago but it seemed to be in the middle of something and I lacked the background to make sense of it. Where should I begin?

I have enjoyed Lora Leigh's "Breeds" series about genetically modified humans who have lion, coyote, or wolf genes. I've been so far unsuccessful in getting into Alice Borchardt's werewolf stories, though. Much too violent and nasty. Transformation fiction appeals to me, but most of what is out there seems to be either blood and gore "horror genre" or else thinly disguised porn.

[hrrunka]

Yes, the Lindskold Wolf books are a series, and need to be read in order. I've got Wolf Captured near the top of my books-to-be-read pile, but I've found myself picking each subsequent book in the series up with a little less enthusiasm...

[wolfgrowl.livejournal.com]

I know what you mean, but I'm enjoying this one. BTW There is a very interesting spottyfeline in the book....

[corelog.livejournal.com]

I always did like McGonagle.

[altivo.livejournal.com]

Indeed. Her Scot's severity probably does suit you in some respects though not all. She comes over well in the film and the audiobook versions too.

[corelog.livejournal.com]

Severe I can deal with. :) What I like most is her sense of fairness and even-handed treatment of the students.

[altivo.livejournal.com]

And her massive competence. Snape was good but lopsided. Dumbledore was very good but like most people of supreme competence, he was removed from the day to day occurrences. McGonagle and Flitwick were so often right there dealing with the real messes... I suppose Sprout would have been too but she was off in the greenhouses so much of the time.

One of many loose ends in my opinion: what happened to Trelawney? We heard about the centaur, who was injured but survived, and Slughorn who was still around at the end. Was Trelawney's end game position even mentioned? Had the deatheaters done away with her prior to Harry, Ron, and Hermione arriving at Hogwarts in the end?

[wolfgrowl.livejournal.com]

I've never read the discword novels. A local playhouse is doing a play based on "Mort" over halloween. Sounds interesting. Would it be difficult to follow?

[altivo.livejournal.com]

I'm not sure how well Pratchett will translate to legitimate stage. But it might be worth a try. To appreciate his writing, you need to be well versed in literature, history, and popular culture. The jokes, puns, and irreverencies come fast and furious for 200+ pages in a typical Discworld novel. Some are explained in footnotes that themselves include more puns and flippant remarks.

For instance, the dwarves insist that in order for his coronation to be legitimate, their king must be seated on "The Scone of Stone". This has many levels of allegory, pun, and slapstick to it besides the obvious one. For instance, you should know that dwarf bread is famous for having the consistency of rocks and being inedible to anyone but dwarves. You would not be surprised to know that the particular stone in question is a piece of conglomerate that does vaguely resemble a scone with nuts and fruit in it. You might also know that there is a dwarfish Museum of Bread in existence, in which some of the examples are centuries old but "still edible..."

I'm sure you'd find it funny. But if you haven't read any Discworld books at all, you'll miss some of the context. Mort is firmly based in one of the Discworld threads, of which there are several. His is the one involving Death, who always speaks in all caps and has an unpleasant job to do but someone has to do it and his family [mostly] forgives him...

[cabcat.livejournal.com]

I think it would've been much better if they stuck with the school based stories then have a new set of books on the "evil" super power.

[altivo.livejournal.com]

Evidently you know something I don't.

[cabcat.livejournal.com]

If I do its non-consequential :)

I meant it kind of left the school far too suddenly to go fight this head evil guy.

[altivo.livejournal.com]

Oh, well, yes, I thought that too. Though with Snape in charge and Dumbledore gone, it does make sense that Harry and Hermione at least were better off anywhere other than at Hogwarts. Shame though for Hermione. She'd have passed all her OWLs of course.