Further thoughts on Deathly Hallows

[jlh]

This collection of thoughts on DH has been started about 5000 times, not because I keep changing my mind about how I feel, but because I keep changing my mind about what I'm willing to say. So I've decided to put down my honest thoughts about the book without editing to please anyone, and say some other thoughts in another post.

I've realized that I can't really speak to the plot of the book without rereading the first six in the light of the seventh, which I know I'll do at some point that isn't right now. I will say that being a mystery and a puzzle fan, I'm a sucker for the whole "there are seven things and we have to find seven ways to kill them" sort of plot. There was indeed a lot of time spent camping but I didn't notice it dragging as a reader; more, at one point JKR mentioned that it was March and I thought, holy shit, kids, let's get on the stick here. That said, I really liked that Harry really didn't know what he was doing, and that Ron and Hermione had to come to terms with how much Dumbledore hadn't told him. I'm not one for action scenes, but those who are tell me they were very satisfied with them, so I'm glad they were good.

What pulled me into HP in the first place, and kept me here, other than the mystery parts of the plots, was the characters. They seemed so real, so flawed but also lovable, and full of possibility. I think a lot of my reaction to OotP, specifically Sirius's character arc, was realizing that JKR was not only not going to fulfill it but wasn't interested in fulfilling it and maybe didn't even think that anyone saw those possibilities in the first place. After that I radically changed my expectations of the books and of JKR as a writer which meant that I enjoyed HBP and DH for what they were, but there was a lot of joy in canon that really went away, for me, after that.

I'm a character-driven consumer of culture. People interest me. Plots, unless they're mystery plots which are really puzzles, are mostly just what the people are doing while I get to spend time with them. So in light of that, I tend to think about the canon as a list of characters. My disappointment, the one I faced four years ago, is that no one changed, no one even had the opportunity to change, even that the author was implying that no one actually does change—that obnoxious kid is going to be that obnoxious adult. I don't believe that in life, and what I like about fiction is watching a character's journey, and I'll even say that I find it to be somewhat irresponsible to say, in a children's book, that a school is entirely right to dismiss a quarter of its population because of something a magical hat worked out when they were eleven.

The Harry and Hermione moments reminded me of why I love their friendship in the book so much; they're fantastic partners who understand each other on a ridiculously deep level and I'm so pleased that JKR testified to that. I adored the glimpses of Seamus and Dean and of course that growly hug. I was so pleased that we saw bits of Dean on the run and that JKR cared to get him to safety at Bill and Fleur's and show Seamus fighting alongside Neville with his usual boyish exuberance. I was so pleased to see Ron grow into the man I always knew was in there someplace.

I've never been a Snape fan, and the Snape/Lily I found to be, in the end, shockingly selfish. To me, that's not love. I've known guys like Snape—hell, I've even been in the position of Lily, standing there telling them that I simply cannot deal with them anymore because they don't know how to stop being an asshole, and it's heartbreaking, when you get to that point with a friend, where you've been there and been there and they just can't get their head out of their ass long enough to understand that there are other people in the world. That Snape's motivation all this time was not a real change in understanding but an obsessive and selfish love is a big let down, and pretty much closes the book on him for me, anyway.

But I will say that what Lily says to him—in effect, that being an asshole isn't the same as being evil—is pretty much the theme of these books. I just wish that more characters had had the opportunity to stop being assholes.

Posts that resonated with me include Cassie's, Maya's, and Magpie's (particularly the insightful discussion in the comments).

Comments

[boniblithe.livejournal.com]

That Snape's motivation all this time was not a real change in understanding but an obsessive and selfish love is a big let down, and pretty much closes the book on him for me, anyway.

ITA. I'm boggled by the people who seized onto Snape's memories as evidence that he was "good"; he was never good, he was loyal only to his own desires, and I didn't get the idea that he was in love with Lily - I got the idea that he wanted her, whether being with him was good for her or not. Which in the end is what love really is, the ability to want what's best for the other person at your own expense. Snape asked Voldemort to spare Lily and didn't give a rip about James or Harry; I'm glad Dumbledore called him on it. If Snape had really loved Lily, he would have warned her and let her get her family to safety. He didn't have the emotional maturity to understand that Harry being killed would rip Lily to shreds.

[jlh.livejournal.com]

Emotional maturity, that's exactly it. Though I'm not sure that JKR sets much store by it, unfortunately.

[darth-kittius.livejournal.com]

I agree with most of what you said - for me, I like this series because of the wonderful characters and settings she's created. But I don't think she gets the specialness of the characters - I don't think she understands what she could use them for. And this isn't one of those 'breeding' comments. It's a 'why discard Snape?' 'why couldn't McGonagall play a bigger role, especially after the book?' 'why do Harry and Ron become exactly what they wanted to in second year?' etc...

Alas, I think the interviews after DH are making me lose respect by the moment for a great woman who created this wonderful world. I think I'm just going to stop paying any attention to them.

[jlh.livejournal.com]

Very early on I read or heard an interview with her where she talked about her characters as pieces that she was moving across a chessboard and I thought, "Yikes!" Not that characters should run the show, or then you get Anne Rice or something, but she clearly saw them as in service to a plot that she had already created. Which is unfortunate, really.

What was it in the interviews that turned you off? Was it the occupations, or the idea that the Trio went on to fundamentally change the entire wizarding world somewhat singlehandedly and everyone said "yay"?

[darth-kittius.livejournal.com]

Well the thing that really makes me mad is that she says that McGonagall is too old to be Headmistress, but she's - what - 50 years younger than Dumbledore. I don't remember exactly but wouldn't she have been in school about the time Tom Riddle was in school? We certainly haven't seen him as being old. And by ability even, she didn't seem too old to lead when she was summoning an army of statues to fight for Hogwarts.

But, yeah, the Trio's future in general irks me. I can work with what's in the books. But knowing what she had in mind for their careers. That's the same as they hoped for in second year! So their love life and their career ambitions don't change at all? Who has a life like that? She's left no room for growth in character. Even with the re-built ministry... I don't see them continuing on that path. But most important, it's the lack of growth. It's the idea that by 15 you've fallen in love (or at least it's subconscious, even if you're denying it) with the person you're going to marry and you've decided what your career is. I could deal with the EWE because you didn't have too much information - you could imagine it on your own. But now knowing... it's like she doesn't have much respect for them or their decision making skills.

I don't know, I don't think I articulated that particularly well.

[sistermagpie.livejournal.com]

Dude! I thought I totally made up the chess piece analogy on my own--because that's exactly what the books felt like, especially starting in OotP. The different moves could be satisfying, but at times that really did feel like all it was. Many of the deaths in DH I said felt like crossing a name off a list of characters, but maybe I should think of it more as just taking out chess pieces!

[calloocallay.livejournal.com]

Neville changed. He stepped the hell up.

Have you read the Westing Game? I believe it is my favorite puzzle mystery. It has GREAT characters and no magic or saving the world.

[sistermagpie.livejournal.com]

Neville changed. He stepped the hell up.

But Neville always stepped the hell up! Since PS/SS!

[jlh.livejournal.com]

I see what you're saying. To me Neville and Ron both just grew into the people that they were going to be, or grew in confidence, rather than changing their mind about something, or being faced with a belief that they feel is wrong, or whatever--the kind of journey that some Slytherin might have taken, not Draco but someone else.

I have not read that! So I will put that on my list. I do like magic, though. I wonder (and I'm not thinking you know this, though you might) if there are books with magic without saving the world? Are all fantasy novels about saving the world? Although, come to think of it, I'm not entirely sure that even Holly's books are about saving the world. They have action scenes and People Up To No Good but not really like, Let Us Now Vanquish Big Evil.

[calloocallay.livejournal.com]

I think gaining confidence is really what most hero's journey quests seem to be about, though. So Neville didn't go from asshole to awesome, but he did gain the confidence to lead a resistence at Hogwarts. This would not have been so in SS or CS, and really marked a huge change. Dudley seemed well on the way to being less of an asshole the last time we saw him, and both Ron and Hermione grew and changed as people, albeit sometimes in a forced manner.

I will loan you Westing Game.

Do you dislike good vs evil, or do you dislike saving the world, or do you dislike both? And how do you feel about magical realism?

[jlh.livejournal.com]

I adore magical realism. I should read more of it.

I'm thinking through things that I like, and I think: I am not fond of stories that need an actual antagonist to start up the plot, someone who is running around doing whatever the evil thing is, taking over the world or whatever, and everyone else has to fight against them. I don't find evil to be that interesting. I always want to say, "Why are you making trouble? I think someone needs a time out!" This isn't to say that I can't enjoy stories like that. The Italian Job was on again last night and Steve being a giant selfish prick sets the rest of the story in motion, but I'm much less interested in getting back at him than I am in the mechanics of the caper. That said, he's not really evil so much as he is selfish and greedy, which is different.

In your average mystery, the killer usually has a reason for doing what they did, even if it is selfish, like, "I wanted the money" or "She killed my mother" or something. It's human scale obnoxiousness. Police procedurals about serial killers, OTOH, whatever. And then with movies like Die Hard--I'd say more about the villains, and the thing that they all have in common, but let's just say that for all the shit they pull none of them want to take over the world. And John McClane is just a guy who doesn't die.

So I think it's Big Good v Big Evil that leaves me cold; I never was into Super Heroes because I was never into Super Villains. (Though, I always want to humanize the super heroes, too; I'm like, but who does the dishes?) But saving the world from like, someone's fuck up (say, War Games) or you know, an asteroid, that's cool.

[millefiori.livejournal.com]

Plots, unless they're mystery plots which are really puzzles, are mostly just what the people are doing while I get to spend time with them.

What a wonderful way to say this! I am ALL about the characters, and I think that's why I tend to be drawn toward fandoms with plot-oriented canon -- because fandom and fanfic can speculate and analyze and draw out all the things about the characters that TPTB won't or can't. Unfortunately, the downside of that is that canon is always going to be something of a let-down for me, since by its very nature it's most likely not going to give me (enough of) what I want in my entertainment.

I felt that there was growth/change shown over the course of the story, most notably in Harry, Neville and Draco, but I was really disappointed in the way she handled Slytherin house, particularly after the foreshadowing of the hat going on about house unity. I think it was irresponsible of her not to do more to 'redeem' Slytherin as a house, because it either implies that 25% of the population (at age 11 no less) can be judged 'bad' OR that some number of those 11 year olds aren't bad yet, but are doomed to become so by virtue of being Slytherin. Either way it's a sucky message. :-/

I understand what you mean about Snape, but I have to say I liked the character more for knowing his story. But then, I believe that if someone does the right thing for the wrong reason, he's still done the right thing. I kind of loved that Snape's actions (in the course of the war--certainly not as a teacher!) were huge and heroic, yet all the while his motives were personal and selfish. I also think that toward the end, possibly beginning at the time of Voldemort's resurrection, Snape's tunnel vision began to expand somewhat, and he did start to appreciate the greater good he was working to bring about.

[jlh.livejournal.com]

I am ALL about the characters, and I think that's why I tend to be drawn toward fandoms with plot-oriented canon -- because fandom and fanfic can speculate and analyze and draw out all the things about the characters that TPTB won't or can't. Unfortunately, the downside of that is that canon is always going to be something of a let-down for me, since by its very nature it's most likely not going to give me (enough of) what I want in my entertainment.

Exactly! This is something I'm really struggling with as you probably saw with my next entry. If a canon gives me what I want in terms of character growth I very often don't feel a great need to read or write any fanfic about it. But if the canon continues to not even give me little tastes, or doles them out in bizarre ways (here I'm thinking of CSI or even House) then I get dissatisfied. Also, in canons like that, fanon WILL affect how I look at canon, and can make me even more dissatisfied! I'm not sure why I could keep it so separate for HP--perhaps because her writing style is so singular that no one came close to aping it in fic, or perhaps for all her deficiencies in character building, a book is still richer than a television show.

I'm beginning to think that I'm a closed canon sort of person. I don't much care for canon speculation, and when canons disappoint me I'm very woeful!

[sistermagpie.livejournal.com]

But I will say that what Lily says to him—in effect, that being an asshole isn't the same as being evil—is pretty much the theme of these books. I just wish that more characters had had the opportunity to stop being assholes.

Yeah, that says it. And it's hard for me because it's *so* not my experience of the world, particularly when it comes to high school. Yet that really seemed to be a given in this universe, even in the new generation.

ITA about Lily/Snape. I seem to recall there's one scene where Snape even really makes a gesture that shows his problem--I think he says something like, "I won't let him have you" or some such. And Lily realizes how bad it is, that Snape basically thinks he saw Lily first and now she's his. Somebody said that Snape couldn't be a stalker because he asks Lily if they're best friends while a stalker wouldn't care what she thought. And I was like...err, well, whether or not he's a stalker, yes a stalker would say that. Snape's asking her in that scene was not a sign that he cared about her feelings, he was demanding a statement of ownership from her.

Snape really didn't seem capable of friendship, ultimately. Some of said that he had Lily and Dumbledore, but I felt like he never actually got over himself enough to really be friends. He had a life full of opportunities but didn't take any of them.

[jlh.livejournal.com]

Someone else here said that Ron and Harry pretty much become what they wanted to be when they were twelve. It's as though the door gets opened for you once, when you're eleven, and that's kind of it. You are that person. And you can grow up, mature, grow into who you are, but that's it--like that discussion of Calvinism in your LJ. And yeah, I just, I don't know anyone like that. But it does explain why everyone marries their childhood sweetheart. Why wouldn't they, when they never change?

Was it Cassie that said that about Lily and Dumbledore? I feel like I just read that. But yeah, hi, loving someone usually is about wanting them to have what they want, not wanting them for yourself. It's like he discovered her and she was his little secret, and then he had to share her with the school and she was very popular and successful and he didn't like that much. And it's not like she dropped him in that popular girl way; she wanted to bring him along but he had, as they say, "funny friends."

I feel badly for Snape because he seems to be such a limited person, and when I see people saying, oh, I'm like that, I think, well, woe!