Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows...

[fajrdrako]

I finished the book. Now I have ten minutes to make a few comments.

Woo. Difficult to confine it to ten minutes.

It wasn't what I expected, even having read spoilers. It was loads better than I expected. I'm not a very enthusiastic Harry Potter fan in general: I have enjoyed all the books, but without passion. I cared far more for the characters and the action in this one than I've cared yet to date. I liked Harry this time, a lot. Never felt much empathy for him before. And Dumbledore! I have notoriously disliked Dumbledore from the beginning. But this book addressed all my problems with Dumbledore, in just the right way. I loved Dumbledore by the end.

Who'd have guessed it was possible?

A few more thoughts:

1. The book improved as it went on. It built on iteself and became quite suspenseful. I couldn't guess what was coming - and I always like that.



2. I thought Harry's non-death scene was wonderful. Powerful, interesting... Has Rowling's writing really improved, or is it just me?



3. I loved Mrs. Weasley's moment of heroic battle.



4. I hated Dobby and the house-elves previously. Loved the Dobby scenes here. Still don't look forward to them in a movie, but... my attitude has certainly changed.



5. I loved the way Harry seemed so adult and mature.



6. I've been a fan of Ginny since the beginning and a big proponent of the Ginny/Harry romance. Loved all the allusions to it. At the same time, it was a little disconcerting that Ginny was such a small part of the story. Harry loved her, but for the bulk of the book he didn't seem to even give her a thought. I was relieved when he finally did. Yes, I know, Harry Potter isn't genre romance, but Hermoine was such a strong presence in the book that it seems a shame that she and Harry weren't a match. I prefer the Ginny/Harry ship, but I'd consequently like to see Ginny as more of a presence and a personality.



7. Of all the characters I have never been enchanted with, the only one who didn't win me over by the end was Ron Weasley. He did have his moments, but I still think of him as the least interesting and appealing of the Weasleys. Percy surprised and delighted me by turning his coat and coming back into the fold. What happened to George after Fred died?



8. I liked McGonagall too - hadn't thought of her as a battle maiden.



9. I liked some of the set pieces, like the magic sword (and its double), and the statues, and the Lovegood tower.



10. Snape - always my favourite character, now redeemed. I am happy about this. Very happy.



11. I thought we were going to see the total downfall of the Ministry. I guess not. Or at least.... I am unclear about what follows. Perhaps it doesn't matter. Hogwarts continues. Harry continues. The children thrive.



12. Loved Harry's thought about himself, Voldemort and Snape being the homeless boys.



13. I liked the connection with the fairy tales and the history.



14. I never, never thought I would be moved by something Rowling had written, but the Doctor was right; I got slightly teary over the climax. Amazing!



15. I would still choose to be in Slytherin.

Comments

[monsieureden.livejournal.com]

According to an online quiz, I am Ravenclaw.

I liked this book too. I have issues as always but liked it. But I have liked them all. They went from simple pleasure to something much deeper, which I think nicely mirrors Harry's maturity.

Harry's acceptance of death was really quite moving, and the Hogwarts children fighting back was great. I thought it was intriguing that Voldemort still had a chance to feel remorse in the end, to save himself, if he wanted. Harry giving him that opportunity was a twist I hadn't foreseen.

The WSJ was all over all the Christian symbolism in this book, ironic as many of these same people protested the story early on.

I also wanted more Ginny. I thought she would play a bigger role in this finale. Hmm. I have always loved Ron, just for his simple loyalty and friendship (without being overly brave or intelligent). It's why I was upset when he left the trio in the last book and very happy when he came back. I would say up until more recent books, he was my favorite character of the children.

Did you like Neville?

Snape wins, hands down, at life! He's the best part of the books.

[fajrdrako.livejournal.com]

I am Ravenclaw

I haven't much sense of Ravenclaw - are they the clever, studious ones?

They went from simple pleasure to something much deeper, which I think nicely mirrors Harry's maturity.

I would agree with that.

Harry's acceptance of death was really quite moving

I really loved that.

I thought it was intriguing that Voldemort still had a chance to feel remorse in the end, to save himself, if he wanted.

Yes. I wonder what would have happened if he had been remorseful. What place is there in the world for a remorseful former Dark Lord? (Mental image of the last Emperor of China scrubbing floors.)

I mostly ignored the Christian symbolism, but yes - I didn't remember symboism being a part of the books before. Had I just missed that?

Ron's simple loyalty? I won't argue - we all interpret characters as we see them - but what I was bothered by was his frequent simple disloyalty to Harry. Over and over.

Yes, I like Neville, and I loved him by the end.

Snape wins, hands down, at life! He's the best part of the books.

So very true. I wish Voldemort had had a fraction of his personality. I found Voldemort very bland.

[monsieureden.livejournal.com]

[Error: Irreparable invalid markup ('<i?i>') in entry. Owner must fix manually. Raw contents below.]

<i?I haven't much sense of Ravenclaw - are they the clever, studious ones?</i>

Yes, who like to read, lol.

I didn't notice Christian symbolism either until this review went on about the concept of redemption and mercy and someone dying to bring about a bigger good, etc. and so on. I think you could find symbolism in anything if you're looking for it.

I never felt Ron was disloyal, except perhaps when he abandoned the trio in this book, and that was partly because of the horcrux he was wearing. He came back and, I think, apologized for it. I've mostly viewed him as perhaps having some jealousy towards Harry that seems natural per being the best of friend of someone with so much significance and destiny. I think he deals with this well on the whole. Worst friends would have turned against Harry.

I wonder why they had to wear that stupid horcrux? Just cause it's a necklace doesn't mean you have to wear it, and if it's negatively affecting you (as it was all three of them) why not just put it in your pouch?

[fajrdrako.livejournal.com]

Yes, who like to read, lol.

I can realate to that! But since the first book I've had a love of Slytherin - partly because I love snakes, partly because I liked Snape better than any of the other teachers, and partly because Rowling's style of writing made me feel perverse.

I didn't notice Christian symbolism either until this review went on about the concept of redemption and mercy and someone dying to bring about a bigger good, etc. and so on.

I hate to sound obsessed (even when I am) but I am amused to see all those features present in the concluding episodes of both Doctor Who and Torchwood last season, especially the huge emphasis on forgiveness. I give both a secular spin as being classic heroic values and I love it in each case. I did think that there were passages in Harry Potter that were just a little too preachy, but not enough to really bother me.

But let me justify my secular spin, at least a little bit. Qualities of redemption, heroism, and self-sacrifice are not exclusive to religion. I have no idea what Rowling's religious views are but Doctor Who and Torchwood both take a very secular, non-religious viewpoint, for all it's very emotional.

I never felt Ron was disloyal, except perhaps when he abandoned the trio in this book

Well, I don't want to go on at length Ron-bashing, I don't like doing that. I just found him disloyal and unsupportive of Harry over and over again throughout the series, according to mood and circumstance. If his jealousy (or whatever motivated it at any given point) was 'natural' it still wasn't loyal or heroic.

In the end they did put the horcrux in Hermione's bag, and I wondered why they didn't just do that in the beginning. It wasn't as if they didn't have enough problems already! Maybe it was like the One Ring in Lord of the Rings, maybe it was subtly influencing them to want to wear it so it could control them.

[monsieureden.livejournal.com]

No I don't think Rowling intentionally put in Christian symbolism, just that the WSJ (notoriously conservative) remarked on it in this particular book. I didn't really think about it until I read the article.

I guess I gauge loyalty by how one reacts in the end, and Ron's end reactions always seemed loyal to me. I think he might have disloyal feelings at times because of envy but I never noticed actions that followed suit, except in this last book, and I felt he redeemed himself for that by coming back and saving Harry's life.

The trio always seemed defined in the book as Harry being the brave one, Hermione being the intelligent one, and Ron being the loyal one. There's even a fan website that defines it as thus. (harry potter trio .com I think?) But we all read characters differently, so it is far from absolute, just the way I've always perceived the three of them.

Yeah, the horcrux necklace thing is odd. I kept saying 'just put it in the bag!' If it was a Lord of Rings type thing it wasn't well explained in the book, which surprises me cause Rowling usually over-explains everything.

[fajrdrako.livejournal.com]

If I had actually liked Ron at any point, I probably would have judged him much less harshly. (And I did like him at least in one scene in one of the movies, so that's progress.)

I sort of assumed that the horcruxes had certain magical properties of their own - being associated with Voldemort's personality - so I let that 'explain' any oddities. I wasn't trying to make sense out of all the details. I did wonder why Voldemort found it advantagious to spread himself around like that - especially when it had the potential to destroy him in the end. As it did. Quite a gamble.

[monsieureden.livejournal.com]

Haha. I certainly know my share of people that don't like Ron. I really liked him early on (like during the chess game) but then as the books went on, less so.

[fajrdrako.livejournal.com]

So it goes! I do like the notion that the next generation of kids are friends.

[monsieureden.livejournal.com]

Yeah I liked that too, though I didn't like the epilogue.

[fajrdrako.livejournal.com]

Why so? Because it didn't explain enough? Or because it seemed off-topic?

I liked it insofar as it showed life going on and the families happy. I didn't like certain things about it - it seemed to be answering all the questions I wasn't asking, and avoiding all the questions to which I really wanted answers. No big deal, really, but it wasn't the direction in which I wanted to follow the story.

Besides this, it came close to tweaking certain philosophical squicks of mine - the notion that traditional marriage and multiple offspring are the routes to happiness, for example - but I'm trying to ignore that.

[silverwhistle.livejournal.com]

Major philosophical squicks of mine, too! Also the fact that it's something the wizarding community seems to leap into so damn young!

[monsieureden.livejournal.com]

It didn't explain enough and it seemed out of place. I could have assumed Harry and Ginny got married and same with Ron and Hermione. What I liked most was that it showed the next generation going to school together, Weasley/potter/Malfoy. I just didn't really need it.

[fajrdrako.livejournal.com]

It didn't explain enough and it seemed out of place.

Uh-huh. I can see that. Too much information, in a way, or possibly not enough. Just enough to make us conscious of all we don't know.

I liked the next generation and I wondered if Rowling was thinking about writing about them in future.