Monday, July 5, 2010

Looking Back: Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows

The first time I read the Harry Potter series, I pushed through all 7 books in 17 days. That included time spent packing, moving, and waiting to be in contact with people from whom I could secure the next volume. Once I finally finished Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, at the end of that marathon, I was exhausted and, admittedly, a bit depressed. It was hard to feel anything about the book in particular, other than the wonderful, dreadful knowledge that it was all done. As time passed, and I reflected on the final volume in particular, I had a few nagging issues with it, but I wasn't confident enough in my recall to make any formal complaints. Last summer, I had a bit to say while re-reading Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire. It was a good re-experiencing these books in a less hurried (or should I say harried*) way, and I've been waiting for the opportunity to do the same with The Deathly Hallows.

I'm now happy to say two things about this book. One, my complaints still stand; and two, they are still largely overshadowed by a handful of key moments.

I'll start with the complaints because, well, that's just the sort of man I am. For one, the entire arc of the book is just alien to the rest of the series. Much of that comes from the fact that Hogwarts isn't present to provide structure of classes and quiditch term breaks. Stranger, though, is that, in this volume, Harry starts out on a mission. In every other book, Harry heads to school just hoping to God for a normal year. We know that isn't going to happen, but we also get to see everything develop and come together slowly with a few peaks of action or character building thrown in. It's almost a mystery structure: Weird stuff going on...One of the professors is acting weirder than normal... OMG, Voldemort!

In Deathly Hallows it's...well, it's just OMG, Voldemort! The whole time. It's a bit overwhelming. It's also strange because it gives Harry sort of a list of mission objectives to complete.

Primary Objectives:
1. Find horcruxes.
1a. Find the locket
1b. Find the cup
1c. Find something related to Rowena Ravenclaw
1d. Get the snake alone
2. Figure out how to destroy horcruxes.
2a. Recover the sword of Godric Gryffindor
2b. Break into the Chamber of Secrets in unlikely fashion
to retrieve Basilisk Fangs.
2c. Learn that the dumb, fat, evil kids randomly learned
how to cast a ridiculously potent fire spell.
Bonus Objective:
3. Unite the Deathly Hallows.

To me, it just feels less like a narrative and more like a lot of checking off of lists. It doesn't help that Harry, Ron, and Hermione are barely escaping death everywhere they go. Leave for The Burrow, barely escape death. Go to a cafe in London, barely escape death. Go to the Ministry, barely escape death. Go to Godric's Hollow, barely escape death. Go to a random forest, barely escape death. Go visit Luna's dad, barely escape death. Get captured by Death Eaters, barely escape death. Go to Gringotts, barely escape death. Go to Hogwarts, barely escape death. That's nine times, off the top of my head, that the kids almost die! That's nine times more than in any other Harry Potter book! Obviously, this is a very dangerous trip!

As borderline awkward as all of this is, though, it's not nearly my biggest complaint. That would be reserved for the long list of material that I feel is almost entirely unnecessary. There's a lot of time spent on the life (and lies) of Albus Dumbledore in this book. Most of it is there to give a false sense that Harry might have serious doubts or turn his back on his mission. I never thought that would happen. The only other purpose it serves is to humanize Dumbledore a bit, but I really don't think that was needed. Adults will assume that his wisdom was hard-won, and kids can stand to have a blemish-less hero once in awhile. It's all interesting to a degree, but not nearly as much as it is distracting. If Rowling can go on ahead and tell us what characters' lives are like in between the main ending and the epilogue through unofficial channels, she can do the same with Dumbledore's home life.

I also fail to see the point of removing Ron for a whole 80 pages of story. I suppose it serves to slap us in the face with the continued mutuality of Hermione's feelings and of his role in the group beyond comic relief, but it just seemed cheap to have him gone for one small vignette and suddenly back.

My biggest problem, however, remains with the eponymous Deathly Hallows and the half-assed introduction of wand lore. I really don't see how the Deathly Hallows were in any way necessary. The Resurrection Stone gave us a nice scene with Harry walking to his demise, I suppose, but it did nothing for the Cloak, and the nature of the Elder Wand then gets all mired up in the BS wand lore stuff. I would have much preferred they stick to the, "Hey, I died for everybody. You can't do any harm to anybody anymore. Suck it!" approach to the ending. Instead, they conflate it with the "Your wand is now mine by way of Draco's actions" Deus Ex Machina by which Harry doesn't even have to be the one to fire the killing curse at Voldy. If that was really the whole reason for all of that wand bull -- pretending that Harry never killed anybody (he did, think of why he didn't stun Stan Shunpike, and then the fact that he did the same to others on his trail) -- then it's just, well, dumb. I'll also note that, when push came to shove, none of the "good guys" were terribly opposed to using any of the "unforgivable curses". The readiness with which Harry uttered his first "imperius" always rubbed me the wrong way.

All said and done, though; as much as the various points above irritate me, it's still a more than adequate ending. Why? Because Harry experiencing Snape's memories is the most important chapter in the entire series. Because Rowling still knows these characters. Because I never actually wanted to stop reading, either time through the book. I meant to take four or five days to cover Deathly Hallows on this outing. I couldn't last longer than two, and I really tried.


*I really ought to be shot

About Me

Lately, I've been writing people from all across the Internets, notably those who are physically located in Boulder, CO, about considering me as a roommate. Since I am stuck on the Internets, unable to manifest myself in Boulder to meet people or see properties, I have been getting a lot of practice introducing and describing myself to people. This afternoon, I had the opportunity to write the longest such explanation yet while starting correspondence with a group of five guys from I've never met before whom I was put in touch with through InterVarsity and who might be willing to let me rent a house with them. I'm not even remotely enthused by the possibility right now, but I've got to take what I can get. At the very least, I think the email introduction a pretty good one -- at the very least, it's thorough (most are much, much more brief). Let's see how many of you agree and what you think I left out:

"...
Mostly, though, I'd like to know a bit more about all of you along with how and how well you know each other. I can get along with just about anybody, but I'm very much an introvert and it can take me awhile to figure out where I fit into established group dynamics and to feel comfortable. Living with 5 guys I don't know from Adam who I don't readily identify with and who are already pretty close could easily result in me semi-consciously cutting myself off. I don't particularly feel like doing that to myself or to you.

I can start by sharing a bit (or perhaps a lot) about myself: I'm an incoming PhD student in Computer Science. I don't fit super well into whatever stereotype that may cause you to imagine, but I am definitely a bit of a nerd. I like boardgames and videogames, I use Linux, I read and (usually) get xkcd , and I'm pretty willing to get excited and engage in debate about relatively meaningless things so long as nobody is being terribly serious about it. I even minored in Japanese. However, I don't obsess over anime, comic books, or RPGs (except occasionally Mass Effect and Chrono Trigger <_<); I get along perfectly well with people who aren't huge nerds; and I even enjoy watching and occasionally playing sports (especially my Twins and Vikings).

I really like music. If Calvin College, where I did my undergrad, had a better program, I would have pursued a double major with it. I sing and play saxophone pretty well and hope to do a bit of both at whatever church I wind up attending. A lot of what I listen to for pleasure is relatively indie (TV on the Radio, DeVotchKa, Explosions in the Sky), but I also love Jazz (Coltrane, Stan Getz), classic rock (Zeppelin, The Who), "classical" (Brahms, Mozart, Stravinsky) and even good pop music on occasion (The Killers, old Weezer). I will never proclaim that I hate an entire genre of music, as so many people do with hip-hop and/or country, even if I'm not terribly fond of the most prominent examples of those genres, as is the case with hip-hop and country. As a result of hanging out with a lot of media production people, I'm also really into movies and relish hanging out and binging on TV on DVD. My collection isn't huge, but I like to think it's of pretty good quality. If you have an appreciation for Arrested Development, Pushing Daises, Freaks and Geeks, or Buffy the Vampire Slayer...we'll probably get along.

In terms of things that more directly impact living arrangements, I have a fellowship, so paying my share of rent and utils should never be a problem. I sometimes let my own room get cluttered with laundry or papers, but I'm pretty good at keeping common areas clean so long as other people make an attempt to do so as well. If you're a bunch of slobs, I'll probably join right along out of spite. I like to cook, and I'm very happy to cook for others so long as they cover their share of the cost. I'm not terribly fond of passive-aggressive behavior, as I tend to respond in kind, which isn't something I like doing. I much prefer that issues be addressed directly and considerately. I'm usually pretty good at acknowledging when I'm in the wrong, and it takes a hell of a lot to make me hold a grudge. About the only thing you can do that will immediately give rise to dislike from me is display intolerance towards another person's race, sexuality, politics, religion, or whatever else (for the record, I am a white, heterosexual, liberal Christian).

I don't mind having people over, and would like to have people over myself for pot-lucks or grill outs or just to hang out. I don't want to live in a huge party house, though, and I tend to revert to people watching in crowds of larger than 10-15, which weirds some people out. I don't drink or smoke and would rather not live with smokers (certainly no 420), but I don't have any problem with others drinking so long as no one person is getting absolutely trashed five nights a week.

Finally, as long as you seem to know one another at least in part through InterVarsity, I may as well also comment that I'm Catholic. Not a "The Pope is always right and Protestants are heathens" Catholic, but an "I appreciate the bulk of the theology, love the level of social activism, and semi-reluctantly understand the value of the hierarchy and thus see no real cause to leave the Church" Catholic. I thoroughly enjoy discussing theology academically, but I'm not huge into talking about my faith or my "walk with Jesus". I can explain in a couple of easy sentences why I'm a Christian if I'm asked, and that's about the deepest I like to go on the subject under all but the most extreme of circumstances.
..."

huh? huh?