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

[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.