Deathly Hallows

[sistermagpie]

I feel weird writing this post, because I don't really feel like posting, yet it seems like I should, and then I think--what, do you imagine the public is waiting on pins and needles for your words? Get over yourself!:-D

Anyway, I didn't much like it. Perhaps my feelings will change, but stop here if you don’t want to read any negative stuff. I don't have any rants prepared or anything or want to harsh anybody's buzz. (But misery also loves company!) I was talking to someone who's asked me what I needed from the book, what I wanted to happen or what would have made me satisfied, and the truth is, I don't have an answer. I don't have a list of prescriptive criticism, or think things were done badly, or should have been done a different way.

Well, except one little thing, which couldn't be helped. When that white doe showed up I never doubted for a second it was Snape's Lily!Patronus (cause she's a lady!James!). We'd seen Arthur's and Kingsley's Patronuses talk, and oh, how I wanted that beautiful sparkly stag to come up to Harry and tell him to get this Quest going already in Snape's sarcastic voice.

I've never loved these books the way some do--which should not be taken as a criticism of people who do. I just mean that I know there are people who re-read the books over and over as comfort, and that's not something I ever did. I didn't ever want to re-read to spend time with these people or in this world. There are other books I do feel that way about, books that other people find meh. Basically, I felt like JKR was writing a story of good and evil, and life and death, that resonated with her and satisfied her, and felt like a triumph for her--just not me. So I was a bit left out of the story, objectively even seeing characters doing good, brave things, and just not sharing much in the emotions. More than once I felt like I was seeing more story outline/structure than story so that it seemed very contrived (a couple of times Harry himself seemed to admit it) and made it feel like nothing was building to anything.

What it mostly made me do is go over all the ways I was reading it wrong, making my issues more central than the author really considered them. I don't think I was ever so off as, say, a Harmonian banking on the Hippogriff o'love or anything like that, and some things that happened I did predict (Snape/Lily, obviously, and DDM!Snape). But in general I think I was reading Rowling a bit too much like a Tolkien fan, and maybe too much as a Jungian (not that I'm any expert on Jung, but I was reading from my own idea of his stuff). And I think when JKR said that she was Christian and if she talked about her faith we'd know the ending, I immediately began interrogating from the *wrong* Christian perspective and got that wrong too.

Contrary to what some may have thought at times-or not-I don't hate the good guys. Still don't hate them, just still would not want to spend time with them or re-read the books to spend time with them. The characters I liked the most I think less of now or am just kind of confused by, which is unfortunate. I find Harry affectionately naming his child Albus Severus downright creepy--but that wasn't the first time in the book where that kind of thing happened.

Not sure what I predict fanfic-wise. I wonder if people might not start writing some interesting stuff. I did at one point think how I wanted to take a favorite character and put him in a different story.

Oh, also I've been dreading the epilogue for years, because I've always hated epilogues. Even when I was too young to know the name for them I hated them. Some books I guess can make a case for them being appropriate. HP is really not one of them that I can see. There was no reason I could see for needing to see these people married with children. The one good thing I read about it was after it was leaked, before I read it, and I read a comment where someone said the epilogue read like any cliché H/G fic...or any cliché post-war H/D fic.;-)

Comments

[horridporrid.livejournal.com]

Yes, I think that was it. It's just... I mean, there's not anything deep to it. It's formulaic, like the hero falling with his arms outflung evoking a crucifixion image. Anyone at all familiar with Christian images will get it. It doesn't need any understanding or knowledge of the writer's faith.

But I think it's the deeper that I got tripped up on. I assumed (hoped?) JKR was going for a more thoughtful, (and I almost cringe using this word but it can't be helped) moral ending. So I was looking for a more indepth reference to her personal belief system or her understanding of Christianity. IOWs, like Magpie said, I was looking for a completely different story than the one she was writing.

[sistermagpie.livejournal.com]

Yeah, like I said I wonder if it's not the specific focus on how incredible it is to make this sacrifice for others, which unfortunately isn't that impressive to me. I think it also probably hooks into her feelings on death, which also didn't resonate with me, like it may be understood to her that choosing to die is amazingly brave--the same distinction she made between Lily and James. This also bringing it back to Harry again.

To bring in LOTR again, I can see so many reasons why that story resonated more with me. Frodo there is agreeing not just to probably die, but to fail, bringing in the humiliation factor that's often missing in the Passion (that is, it was there in the real Passion, but it's often overlooked in the telling). People were honest with Frodo about what he was doing. He wasn't celebrated for it or treated as a savior. In the end, was there really any reason that this whole quest had to be kept secret from everyone? Why on earth did Harry have to destroy the Horcruxes himself? One expects Voldemort to make a mistake like insisting that *he* be the one to kill Harry even though if he'd just let Crabbe do it he'd have won. But it's like Dumbledore wanted to make Harry as special as possible so his hero story would go the way he wanted.

[horridporrid.livejournal.com]

Did anyone else get a "yay, suicide!" vibe from the book? Because, yes, there's a very odd take on death and being willing to die, IMO. (And how bizarre that the Ravenclaw and Slytherin ghost mascots were a murder/suicide pair? No hope for those houses, apparently.)

I think you've hit the nail on the head with this:

Frodo there is agreeing not just to probably die, but to fail...

There wasn't a sense at all that in sacrificing himself Harry might screw everything up. It was just, if I die we win, so I'll go die now. It was frankly, hard for me to read as all that sacrifical in the end. Especially as Harry was surrounded by all his beloved dead as he headed off to be killed.

[sistermagpie.livejournal.com]

(And how bizarre that the Ravenclaw and Slytherin ghost mascots were a murder/suicide pair? No hope for those houses, apparently.)

Once again, a Slytherin who's not so bad turned out to have been distinguished by a laser like focus affection on one specific person whom he desired. And killed. Um, yay.

There wasn't a sense at all that in sacrificing himself Harry might screw everything up. It was just, if I die we win, so I'll go die now. It was frankly, hard for me to read as all that sacrifical in the end. Especially as Harry was surrounded by all his beloved dead as he headed off to be killed.

Exactly! It reminded me of the Lily stuff again, where so many of us couldn't figure out why it was in any way unique that Lily would put herself in front of her baby--wouldn't any mother do that? Why is Harry wondering if Neville's would? And here again, Harry's choice actually seems like one that most people (erm, non-Slytherin people) would make.

[montavilla.livejournal.com]

And here again, Harry's choice actually seems like one that most people (erm, non-Slytherin people) would make.

And yet, Slytherin people would make it. It's just that Harry would die for everyone, and a Slytherin would die for someone specific.

Like, Narcissa would have died for Draco if it would have helped. Lucius, too, probably. Snape spent the last seven years of his life trying to protect Harry--and all the students.

But larger point taken. :)

[alula-auburn.livejournal.com]

I identify as Christian (albeit in the squishy, non-hell-believing, the-Bible-was-wrriten-by-corruptible-men, United Church of Christ sense), but I usually find it really unsatisfying and and generally discomfiting when literature takes the Christ-metaphor literally--i.e., when knowingly, willingly sacrificing yourself for others becomes such a powerful force that it actually undoes reality and the laws of space and time and the universe, whatever that is. The old magic kicks in and death itself reverses, et cetera. It's not a plausibility thing, it's a using a meaningless premise for a moral argument so it becomes specious thing Because that really only works if you are Jesus or Aslan or Harry Potter (or even Lily, to a lesser extent)--when you translate that moral or philosophy into real life, you generally DON'T have the security of omniscience and a guarantee that your sacrifice will actually accomplish something, and the very nature of sacrifice is that you DON'T get to have your cake and eat it too.

(Bad fan admission: I've, er, still not actually read LOTR--it's one of those things that I understand why people love, and I'm duly impressed by the scope and scale, and I respect its impact, but when we actually meet face-to-face we just don't click. That said, even via movie-only exposure and fan commentary, I agree with what you said above about Frodo not having the reassurance of his own success, and for me, it also works because it still seems to indicate consequences for having made the sacrifice even when it does succeed.)

[sistermagpie.livejournal.com]

I think that really puts into perspective what I mean about the kind of Christianity I don't much like that's in the book--the focus on the sacrifice of Jesus. As you say, that kind of thing only works if you are Jesus, and it's also just...I remember hearing this kind of thing described in a review of The Passion of the Christ, how it sort of gets into how great this personal sacrifice was and how it was made FOR US, and how it seems to lead to a kind of self-centered Christian view. I don't know if that's what's going on here, but it feels that way, that Voldemort is destroyed without my really feeling like humanity got any better or there was anything bigger in the world.

In LOTR, I know Tolkien ultimately sees Frodo's sacrifice as earning him grace so that God steps in, but what I like is that Frodo doesn't do anything non-human like at all, and things just work out because the choices he made (to show mercy) can lead to a good outcome. It's funny, actually, that there's something similar in JKR's world with Peter, but in a different way. First, it's not as much of a risk on Harry's part because there's magic that will now bind Peter to Harry, while Gollum is bound to Frodo with something more like true feeling. Neither Peter nor Gollum really become good, and they both against their will do something to help the good side, but Gollum's story seems more like the natural end to his life. It seems like he's taken out by something benevolent that isn't wholly against his own wishes, where as Peter is kind of hilariously punished by Voldemort because Harry got a spell in there on him.

I thought it was actually odd there where there was that reference to Peter feeling "some remorse" because I didn't see it at all. Gollum felt remorse in an actual moment. With Peter you don't feel that way at all. He just has a magic spell on him that makes him hesitate and then he's instantly killed.

[montavilla.livejournal.com]

This is reminding me of Vonnegut's Trafalmadorian retelling of the Christ story. The Trafalmadorians tell it something like this: There was this guy named Christ that went around telling everyone that he was the Son of God. Everyone thought he was crazy and an asshole, and eventually he got on everyone's nerves so much that they crucified him to get him to shut up.

Whereupon God appeared and said, "Well, he wasn't my son, but I'm adopting him now, so he is."

So, the moral becomes not that the sacrifice worked because he was born the Son of God. In fact, it wasn't so much of a sacrifice as someone annoying people to the point where they decided to kill him. The moral is similar to Ratatouile. Not that everyone can be a great cook, but that a great cook can come from anywhere.

Anyone could be the Son of God. Even if they're just a crazy jerk who won't shut up. Even if there was nothing remotely special about the way they were born. Because what's to stop God from adopting you at the last moment?

****

But getting back to Harry. What's disappointing with Peter (and a lot of the other magic spells in the series) is that while the magic is built up as metaphorical, it turns out to be a lot more prosaic. That life debt didn't fulfill itself in a deep and mystical way. It was just... plain old magic.

[mondegreen.livejournal.com]

I think the ultimate humiliation, here, is to show cowardice even in the face of death. Voldemort humiliated Harry's supposed corpse by announcing to everyone at the castle that he had run for his life before being killed. But it never really felt like a sacrifice or possibility of failure -- because we knew (through reading Harry's own POV) that Harry was alive, that he would be able to prove to everyone that he didn't run away. That he was courageous and brave and stood there like a martyr for the GREATER GOOD. Heh. hence the whole drawn-out speech before battling with Voldemort: it rang much like, "Hey, guys, hey. I was totes brave and didn't run out on you, see, see?"

That's why I found Snape (life and) death strangely Old Testament-y. Yeah, he was "forgiven" in the sense that his memory was preserved: he wasn't a coward. Yet, and I'm certainly no expert, it seemed like Snape spent his entire life in penance to make up for past sins, as opposed to forgiveness brought about belief. I suppose if you look at it in a chronological way, it makes sense: before there was Potter Christ, you had to face a wrathful God. Except everyone still hates the Slytherins in the end.

[sistermagpie.livejournal.com]

That does seem like the basic point-and it's weird to think anyone would have any reason to believe Voldemort of all people about how Harry died.

The weird thing about Snape is I felt like she didn't even have him doing penance--at least not willingly. He was being punished and doing things to make up for what he had done, but I didn't feel like it really redeemed him at all beyond what he felt from the beginning: Shit, I killed Lily.

[slinkhard.livejournal.com]

The whole HP series sort of reminds me vaguely of that essay on Pet Semetary we discussed one time, where the whole story (which the essayist believed was a failure, thematically speaking) is not just about the fear of death, but reveals what appears to be a fixation about it of the authors.

I mean, the fact that Lily's sacrifice, while heroic, is painted as something unbelievably awe-inspiring (I thought she'd just hand over her baby to the psycho killer!) is almost creepy.
This is how terrifying death is, that a choice which would seem to be a no-brainer to most people (not that you can tell until you're in the moment, but I can't imagine anyone even caving for a stranger's child) is not even expected to be the norm but is supposed to be a one in a million style act of bravery.

And yet on the other side you almost have the worship of death with the Gryffindors who don't seem capable of playing tag unless there's the chance of a fatality; and this contempt for anyone who might be frightened not only of dying, but of injury or pain, where it's literally more honourable not just to be brave but to reject fear (while still remaining human, blah-de-blah - still haven't started the book, but I rolled my eyes hearing about Harry's "childish" line wondering if death hurts. My heartstrings, they were plucked! Not.) completely; where the ultimate evil is represented by a fear of death.

[sistermagpie.livejournal.com]

Heh. This also makes me think of Lupin. First he shows up offering to go with the Trio, because they've no idea what they're doing. Harry of course tells him no because the Horcrux hung is secret (for no reason WHATSOEVER except I guess that Harry has to be the lone hero). Then he yells at him--Lupin is trying to do a Sirius or something and fling himself into danger when the real bravery is STAYING WITH YOUR CHILD BECAUSE NO PARENT SHOULD LEAVE HIS CHILD EVER!!!

Lupin gets angry, but pages later apologizes over the wireless. Lupin has done the truly brave thing.

So at the end of the book he and wife can rush into battle and both get killed.

Um, I'm confused. Was he brave or a coward? I don't know if I should mourn him or not!

[seductivedark.livejournal.com]

I know Harry is the hero of the story, but really, he's seventeen, has no wife and no child, and all these people he's supposed to be saving or feeling sorry for not saving sooner, just seem to be abstracts to him on one level. He had no room to advise Lupin, IMO. Whether he took on a Christ-like role later, no one ever accused Harry of pontificating in the temple at twelve.

[slinkhard.livejournal.com]

LOL, yes. (I heard Lupin hexed Harry. If so I will mourn him.) It's like she got a little too close to the idea that there might be other kinds of bravery than the flashy, physical kind (if Lupin had actually stayed with his child, he may not have been different from those awful Slytherins! What Would Lily and James Have Done? Plus, a man sitting out a battle? For a kid? *suspicious look* Not very Gryffindor.
Of course, as soon as Tonks arrives, I knew she was toast, since she was a mum leaving her baby, rather than staying at home.)