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

[fajrdrako.livejournal.com]

I wonder if she was having to damp down the fact she was more interested in him as a character while she was writing

I'd be hard put to guess at Rowlings's feelings; I think she was deeply committed to Harry as her hero, but wanted a characer who would be in a place of ambiguity - someone we could think was a villain but who turned out to be heroic even though he didn't like Harry. Which is one of the things that made Snape interesting.

It's odd too that she didn't put much effort into characerization of Voldemort. Tom Riddle had his moments because he was more human. Voldemort was so one-dimensional... I kept wondering what he would actually do with the world once he enslaved it. Take up rose gardening? Torture puppies?

[silverwhistle.livejournal.com]

I'd be hard put to guess at Rowlings's feelings; I think she was deeply committed to Harry as her hero, but wanted a character who would be in a place of ambiguity - someone we could think was a villain but who turned out to be heroic even though he didn't like Harry. Which is one of the things that made Snape interesting.

I recall her on TV once showing an early sketch she'd done of Severus: I rather think she was more fond of him than she has sometimes let on. The ambiguity is what makes him interesting, especially to older readers. I was discussing this earlier with redonethegreat.

It's odd too that she didn't put much effort into characterization of Voldemort. Tom Riddle had his moments because he was more human. Voldemort was so one-dimensional... I kept wondering what he would actually do with the world once he enslaved it. Take up rose gardening? Torture puppies?

The whole 'Dark Lord' thing is difficult to do without lapsing into 1-dimensionality and cliché. And, when writing primarily for young readers, there are limits as to just how dark you can push things. A more human master-villain, still with recognisable traits of Tom Riddle, would have been more frightening. (Just as John Simm's jolly, joke-cracking Master was particularly scary in Doctor Who.)

[fajrdrako.livejournal.com]

Certainly Severus Snape has been the most interesting and complex character of the whole series - despite the fact that he doesn't change particularly through the course of the books, and never really changes his mind about Harry. But he remains memorable. Witty, too.

Yes, I agree that Voldemort needed to be more human. And giving him some of the Master's more entertaining traits would have been terrific - and scary. I'd have loved to have seen Voldemort dancing with Umbridge!

[silverwhistle.livejournal.com]

Yes, I agree that Voldemort needed to be more human. And giving him some of the Master's more entertaining traits would have been terrific - and scary. I'd have loved to have seen Voldemort dancing with Umbridge!

Yes. Some of the worst, most terrifying tyrants who have ever lived have had their 'informal' human side, which is what makes them all the more scary. We can recognise them as members of our species. The notion of the "banality of evil" may be a cliché, but it's a true one.

[fajrdrako.livejournal.com]

I find Draco and Lucius Malfoy, for example, more interesting and scary as antagonists in these books because they are much more human than Voldemort. They have lives and friends and relatives, not just minions and servants.

[silverwhistle.livejournal.com]

Yes, exactly!