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

[fruitbat813.livejournal.com]

Ok, that turned out to be a bit cryptic so I´ll clarify.

I was basically referring to silverwhistle´s comment that Hermione got "popped back into the domestic box". What kinda cracked me up about this is that neither Ron´s nor Harry´s professions were mentioned in the epilogue either but still, this has to mean only poor Hermione, being a woman, naturally ended up with the three Ks (Kinder, Küche, Kirche - children, kitchen, church) while at the same time implying - by omission - that the same doesn´t apply for the guy. A bit of a leap, I thought - ok, not really, I thought something much nastier.

Anyway, about the epilogue. I´m quite happy that J.K. Rowling didn´t list everyones profession, salary and the color of their living room furniture. That really wasn´t the point. Both love and family are very important in the books. Harry never had a family, now he does and more than that, he can raise his children in peace and send them off to Hogwarts in a world without fear and terror. After all, that´s what he fought for and that´s what the epilogue is about, not some childish catalogueing of who got what grades at Wizard U.

It´s not enough to win the war. After the last battle, when you find yourself sitting on a heap of rubble that´s when the real struggle starts because then you have to rebuild and success is by no means assured. If you fail there, it still might be all for nought. The inhabitants of the Wizarding World did not fail in this. That´s what the epilogue tells you. That´s the really important bit. All is well. Who gives a shit what job they have? I sure don´t. :)

[fajrdrako.livejournal.com]

Not to asnwer for silverwhistle, but I think she was thinking that there was a certain contrast there that is less problematic with male characters. It does apply for the guys too, in my opinion - but with them it has fewer political undertones. (Overtones?) Or potentially so.

In other words, if you're gunning for Hermione's success in life, it would be really nice to know more about her. I suppose from my point of view... since I like her and don't like Ron... I wanted to know about her life specifically apart from him.

I take your point about the epilogue, and I agree that this is what Rowling was all about. I don't entirely agree with her socio-politically (which is where the dichotomy lies), but I like the sense of continuity there, the sense of things carrying on with the new generation.

It isn't their jobs I care about, it's their lives.

[fruitbat813.livejournal.com]

You see, that´s what kind of made me laugh - that the reader might see not mentioning Ron´s and Harry´s job as less problematic than not mentioning Hermione´s job. Because that tells you a lot more about the reader than about the book or the author. It´s really a bit sad actually. It´s like that joke my uncle used to tell. "There a two things I don´t like. Racism and negroes."

And not that I want to cast any aspersions on siverwhistle here, I`m saying this as a general observation. Just to make that clear.

[fajrdrako.livejournal.com]

Whether my political or social views affect my reaction to what I read (or watch) depends largely on the source. Probably the writers whose views echo my own, at least in part, get my greatest admiration and affection, especially if their writing style is superior. Undestandably. If I name my favourite authors (from Dickens to Dunnett?) they probably echo my worldview more than other authors do.

K.J. Rowling's general attitude to society doesn't particularly echo my own, I think, so it probably makes me more likely to be judgmental in a call like this, than I would be if if I felt she and I had a closer outlook. I am not saying she is trying to be political - she isn't, and does a good job of avoiding that, and more power to her for it - but the assumptions and lifestyle of her characters doesn't reflect my life or views or experience particularly.

It brings us to the whole central problem of feminist principles: that if men and women are equal, it is nonetheless damaging to treat them equally, because of inequities and perceptions already existing. In terms of racism (the example you give), affirmative action is the same sort of catch-22.

And this is all getting rather heavy when Rowling's work doesn't warrant or deserve that.

Nonetheless, the things she says or doesn't say are what build (word by word) by perceptions of her novels and my reactions to them and the characters.