Harry Potter book 7 - a revisionist perspective

[blublood]

So when I got sick a few weeks ago, I re-read Deathly Hallows, hoping that death might come to me before I finished it (yeah, it was THAT kind of sickness!). Obviously that didn't work, but on reflection I kind of think that book 7 wasn't as good as you would have thought on first read. It was definitely much, much better than you would have thought it could be with all the impossible hype to live up to, but it left me feeling empty.

Specifically the portrayal of Voldemort bugs me. Book 6 set us up so well for a massive showdown of Harry vs. the Master of All Evil. The protection around the horcrux in the cave was brilliant - pure genius and pure evil. I think you really expected more of that in the climactic book 7, and also for Voldemort to reveal powers heretofor unknown to the wizarding world which plucky Harry has to battle.

Well... instead we found out that he could fly, which I could have told you from the first book, that one horcrux went in a vault at Gringott's (not really very imaginative), that one was in the room of hidden things (and why in the world would he think that he's the only one who can get in when quite obviously, lots of other people have been there??), and that someone was going to have to kill the snake, which we already knew.

Then even in the battle at Hogwarts, it seems that the best the Death Eaters, and even Voldemort himself, can do is either avada kedavra people or put them in the body-bind spell which Hermione learned how to do her first year. I mean, really - this is "dark magic"? This is the most terrifying wizard the world has ever seen?

It just seemed like Voldemort came off looking like an idiot at the end of Book 7, not at all the sort of character we were promised in books 1-6. Any thoughts?...

[JasonEvans]

What did you think upon re-reading the 400 pages of "wandering through the woods doing nothing" that Harry, Ron, and Hermione endure? Yawn.

I think JK tried to do something in book 7 that would be unexpected and daring, but it really fell short when she had to wrap everything up rather quickly. It would have been a lot more fun if we had found the first Horcrux in book 4 or 5 and then slowly discovered them over the course of the next books. I would have enjoyed that a lot more than the rush to discover them in 7. The scene in Gringots almost seems designed to be impossible to translate to the big screen. What a mess of a scene that is!!

--Jason "hated, hated, hated the epilogue at the end of 7, that's for sure!" Evans

[brevity]

It would have been a lot more fun if we had found the first Horcrux in book 4 or 5 and then slowly discovered them over the course of the next books.

Well, technically, the first Horcrux (that was non-living) was destroyed in book 2, and the second was introduced in book 5, but I know what you mean.

The concept of the Horcrux is so fascinating -- probably JKR's single best idea of the last 2 books -- that I wished she had come up with 7 unique ways to destroy them.

blublood: I found that re-reading parts of Deathly Hallows helped me appreciate the book more. Certainly the Xenophilius Lovegood chapter and those surrounding it. (Though part of that is my steadfast belief that Hugh Laurie should play that role.)

I did not share your high expectation of Voldemort for book 7 because I read book 6 somewhat differently. Dumbledore and the pensieve introduce us to Voldemort as the boy and man Tom Riddle, cutting through a bit of the mystique and hype. Then, by book 7, you start to see the problems Voldemort has with leading by fear and distrusting his followers. He's formidable, but beatable.

[cf-62]

So when I got sick a few weeks ago, I re-read Deathly Hallows, hoping that death might come to me before I finished it (yeah, it was THAT kind of sickness!). Obviously that didn't work, but on reflection I kind of think that book 7 wasn't as good as you would have thought on first read. It was definitely much, much better than you would have thought it could be with all the impossible hype to live up to, but it left me feeling empty.

Specifically the portrayal of Voldemort bugs me. Book 6 set us up so well for a massive showdown of Harry vs. the Master of All Evil. The protection around the horcrux in the cave was brilliant - pure genius and pure evil. I think you really expected more of that in the climactic book 7, and also for Voldemort to reveal powers heretofor unknown to the wizarding world which plucky Harry has to battle.

Well... instead we found out that he could fly, which I could have told you from the first book, that one horcrux went in a vault at Gringott's (not really very imaginative), that one was in the room of hidden things (and why in the world would he think that he's the only one who can get in when quite obviously, lots of other people have been there??), and that someone was going to have to kill the snake, which we already knew.

Then even in the battle at Hogwarts, it seems that the best the Death Eaters, and even Voldemort himself, can do is either avada kedavra people or put them in the body-bind spell which Hermione learned how to do her first year. I mean, really - this is "dark magic"? This is the most terrifying wizard the world has ever seen?

It just seemed like Voldemort came off looking like an idiot at the end of Book 7, not at all the sort of character we were promised in books 1-6. Any thoughts?...

I thought Phoenix was brilliant -- a modern day Animal Farm for readers of all ages. Half-Blood Prince had great twists and turns, although the book itself left me feeling helpless (as it was supposed to, which points to JKR's talents). I compare how I felt at the end of Book 6 with the numbness I felt leaving The Empire Strikes Back. And like Return of the Jedi, Deathly Hallows left me with a half-***ed silly grin on my face with mixed feelings for having actually enjoyed such a stupid story.

Really, I could sit and read (or watch) Order of the Phoenix any time, any where.

[godukerocks]

--Jason "hated, hated, hated the epilogue at the end of 7, that's for sure!" Evans

I don't think JKR intended for you to hate it, but if you were slightly disappointed, she said that's what she was trying to do. I don't remember what her full explanation was, but I know that she said she left it a little brief on purpose.

[JasonEvans]

I don't think JKR intended for you to hate it, but if you were slightly disappointed, she said that's what she was trying to do. I don't remember what her full explanation was, but I know that she said she left it a little brief on purpose.

I did not hate it for being brief, I hated it for making everything nice and tidy and neat in the end. Everyone ends up married to their high school sweethearts and their kids all go to school together.

Are you kidding me?!?! Talk about bad storytelling!!!

--Jason "I think JK wanted to button it all up so it was clear there was no more story to tell, but that's a really dull and unimaginative way to end the story of these remarkable characters" Evans

[aimo]

Certainly the Xenophilius Lovegood chapter and those surrounding it. (Though part of that is my steadfast belief that Hugh Laurie should play that role.)

I did not share your high expectation of Voldemort for book 7 because I read book 6 somewhat differently. Dumbledore and the pensieve introduce us to Voldemort as the boy and man Tom Riddle, cutting through a bit of the mystique and hype. Then, by book 7, you start to see the problems Voldemort has with leading by fear and distrusting his followers. He's formidable, but beatable.

From the moment I read the chapter where they visit the Lovegood home, I pictured Hugh Laurie as Xeno. Like I've said before, kind of a Prince George (Blackadder) on acid.

And I agree on how Voldemort was portrayed. I actually liked how it ended, that he was fallible. That maybe evil is not all powerful afterall and that everyone together can beat it. Okay, that sounds kind of sappy, but then again, I have read the book four times now.

[bdh21]

I actually liked how it ended, that he was fallible. That maybe evil is not all powerful afterall and that everyone together can beat it.

"Evil will always triumph because good is dumb."

[colchar]

--Jason "I think JK wanted to button it all up so it was clear there was no more story to tell, but that's a really dull and unimaginative way to end the story of these remarkable characters" Evans

Perhaps that was the only way she thought she could do it without bringing up more questions which would have led to the inevitable cries for more books in the series?

[blublood]

The concept of the Horcrux is so fascinating -- probably JKR's single best idea of the last 2 books -- that I wished she had come up with 7 unique ways to destroy them.


I did not share your high expectation of Voldemort for book 7 because I read book 6 somewhat differently. Dumbledore and the pensieve introduce us to Voldemort as the boy and man Tom Riddle, cutting through a bit of the mystique and hype. Then, by book 7, you start to see the problems Voldemort has with leading by fear and distrusting his followers. He's formidable, but beatable.

Interesting! I had exactly the opposite reaction to 6 - to me, knowing about his childhood, the degree of malice and power that he had even from a very young age, the murders of his relatives, the insanity evident in his family line, all added to the mystique rather than detracting. Those portraits I felt were entirely consistent with Voldemort - most of 7, not so much so.

I most heartily agree that the destruction of the horcuxes was anti-climactic and really a missed opportunity on Rowlings' part. I mean, really... Ron randomly happens to speak the right phrase in parseltongue, gets down into the Chamber of Secrets, and find the basilisk corpse that's been rotting there for 5 years to stab the horcrux? Give me a break.

Also, I always had the notion that the chess match in book 1 was a pre-figurement of the final resolution to the series. Hermione saves the day with her brains and cool thinking (i.e. not going to pieces every other page as in 7). But Ron displays an unexpected core of iron under fire and this is what saves him and the people he loves. Didn't quite work out that way - Rowling seemingly got too wrapped up in the tragedy of Harry's story, which made the whole thing less powerful IMO.

Jason: Indeed, I mainly used those parts to get some sleep when my fever was too high. However, in Rowlings' defense, I compare that section to the section of LOTR when Frodo and Sam are going through the tunnel to Mordor... going through the tunnel... going through the tunnel... still tunneling... and the reason it seems endless and boring is because it is. You're feeling exactly what the characters are feeling and their increasing desperation at the fact that nothing is happening when so much is at stake.

[The Gordog]

However, in Rowlings' defense, I compare that section to the section of LOTR when Frodo and Sam are going through the tunnel to Mordor... going through the tunnel... going through the tunnel... still tunneling...

Dude, there's no tunnel into Mordor. Shelob's lair was just one chapter.

[billybreen]

Dude, there's no tunnel into Mordor. Shelob's lair was just one chapter.

Well, the whole run up to the lair and then all the slogging around Mordor felt like it really dragged to me.

[blublood]

Dude, there's no tunnel into Mordor. Shelob's lair was just one chapter.

For the record, there's also no "dude" since you're talking to a mom with a small child.

[billybreen]

For the record, there's also no "dude" since you're talking to a mom with a small child.

It's debatable the extent to which dude is gender specific any more.

Throaty, can we get a ruling on this?

[billybreen]

It's debatable the extent to which dude is gender specific any more.

Throaty, can we get a ruling on this?

PS, I did a bit of research. It's commonly accepted (read: I found one site where a few people made this argument) that 'dude' as a form of address is non-gender specific. When used as a subject or object ("that dude over there," for example), 'chick' is the preferred female alternative to 'dude.'

Ergo, that chick Gordog was correct.

[DukeDevil]

I just saw a "harry potter and the prizoner of Azkaban ringtones" banner. There's a ringtone for that? yeesh. Talk about auto-generated.

[snowdenscold]

I just saw a "harry potter and the prizoner of Azkaban ringtones" banner. There's a ringtone for that? yeesh. Talk about auto-generated.

I don't know which ad you're referring to - but PoA definitely has some new music that wasn't in the first two which I enjoy (Window to the Past, etc.)

[DevilAlumna]

PS, I did a bit of research. It's commonly accepted (read: I found one site where a few people made this argument) that 'dude' as a form of address is non-gender specific. When used as a subject or object ("that dude over there," for example), 'chick' is the preferred female alternative to 'dude.'

My vote actually goes to "Chica" being the equivalent. (tho some might then argue that Dude should be "hombre" or somesuch.)

And FTR, I liked the "wander through the woods" parts of Book 7. It built the misery.

[cato]

My vote actually goes to "Chica" being the equivalent. (tho some might then argue that Dude should be "hombre" or somesuch.)

And FTR, I liked the "wander through the woods" parts of Book 7. It built the misery.

FWIW, I address my wife as "Dude" many times a day. As in, "Dude, did you hear . . ." In fact, I probably average at least one email a day to her which consists solely of:

"Dude!"

I think that the word is no longer gender specific (if it ever was). Now, whether or not someone wants to be called a dude is another matter.