mangofandango | (no subject)

Too much sitting in front of my computer. Too much curriculum mapping. Ugh.

So, let's see. I liked the book, but I'm also in a snarky place right now - so there may be more snark ahead than praise.

Let's start with snark, shall we? That epilogue was just plain silly. All misty and kids-named-after-people and gag me with a spoon. Meanwhile, it didn't address things I actually cared about, like what happened to Luna and stuff like that. I figured there was a happy married-with-kids future in store, but I could have left that to the fanficcers, you know? I'm glad Hogwarts survived and everything, though. Who is headmaster now? Did it say?

I found the constant exposition through newspaper articles a little too...constant. I get that's convenient, Ms. Rowling, but must we do it every single chance we get? Come, now. I was also frustrated with how frequently I said to myself "Wow kids, that plan is going to BOMB", and then, shockingly, it did bomb - but whatever, they're kids, therein lies the dramarama, and they flew out of Gringott's on a freaking dragon!

I thought Hermione and Ron were cute, though I was annoyed at how UTTERLY PERPLEXED Harry was by the whole thing. WTF dude, you're not 10 anymore - get a clue. Meanwhile, I had nearly forgotten about Harry and Ginny from book 6, to be honest. We didn't get to see enough of Ginny lately for me to really get into that - but I felt his pangs, I suppose. Meanwhile, I loved that this was the trio's book - they came satisfyingly into their own, and even though the constant bickering was annoying, I still liked them in the end.

So, this book was really dark. Really dark for the third graders I know are devouring it right now. I'm kind of curious how kids will actually handle this book. I mean, there's lots of death, and heavy-handed political messages, and references to all kinds of things I can't imagine the wee ones really understanding. It will be interesting to see the reaction of the kids, I think.

It tickled me that (in addition to the darkity dark darkness) the kids all swore mildly, and that Harry drank FIREWHISKY, and that Mrs. Weasley called Bellatrix a BITCH. Oooh, we is grown ups now! I wonder how long it will take before this one is banned banned banned. Shall we place bets?

I was really sad about Dobby. I think his death bothered me the most. I was surprised about Fred, but he was a sensible choice, I guess - not-too-central, but not too random, either.

I am trying to decide if I would have rather had Harry have to actually die. As it is, I think it was satisfying that he came back - I just didn't fully understand the reasoning there, and maybe I need to read some other people's thoughts on that to really buy it. If I could buy it, then I would like it - I just read that whole expositionary scene in King's Cross and said "huh?" Also, the little suffering thing - was that Voldemort? Or something? I'm confused. Literary symbolism apparently escapes me. Help?

I liked the whole part where Hermione and Harry went back to the town where his parents died. More the part prior to what's-her-name-who-was-actually-possessed-by-snakeface, but yeah.

I loved freaking Professor McGonagal, she rocked my socks.

Throughout the entire book, I was thinking about the eventual movie. I think she's writing them that way, now - I don't know whether that is helping or hurting. The dragon part will be cool, huh? ;)

And um, enough of that. Back to curriculum mapping, I guess?

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

I didn't really understand the reasoning behind Harry coming back to life either, which is why I think I need to read it again, a little more slowly. I know Dumbledore said something about Harry gave himself up willingly without a fight, but then it got all into there's a part of voldemort in harry and a part of harry in voldemort, and that's where i got confused. Also, I'm not sure I caught the Elder Wand switcheroo fully.

I think that little suffering thing was Voldemort, although I thought it should have been explained more. The only thing I could really think of was.. Harry was dead so that was his soul in Kings Cross... So maybe that thing was the parts of Voldemort's soul that had been killed? and he was all messed up and evil, and his soul was suffering because of it? totally guessing there though.

The camping and hiding out part was a little long for me. I know they didn't know what to do or where to go, but I don't think I needed that many pages of them saying "we don't know what to do! we don't know where to go!" over and over.

I read on some message boards that people didn't like the epilogue, but it was enough for me. I would like to know what some of the other characters ended up doing, but I felt like if she put Luna in then she'd have to put Neville in and then add all of the Order members and professors etc, and then it just would have been too long. The kids' names were cheesy, but I thought it was sweet and probably realistic that someone would name their kids after people so important to them. Just seeing it all together for the first time was a little much.

A couple of your questions were answered by Rowling (http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/19959323/) in a Today show interview today (and tomorrow). The MSNBC web version says what becomes of Luna. She also said that the Hogwarts headmaster in the future would be some brand new person rather than some familiar old character.

I don't think she's writing them thinking about the movies at all. If so, she's doing an obnoxiously bad job of it, from a filmmaker's perspective.

Hey Sarah! :)

I am a big time Harry Potter fan, and, somehow, no one I know IRL has finished the book, so I am so happy to have a post where I can discuss it without worrying about spoiling someone!

I thought the epilogue was kind of corny, too. I get that what Harry always wanted was a happy family, and I'm glad he got it, but I expected something different.

I cried buckets and BUCKETS over Dobby's death. I didn't like movie!Dobby much, but Dobby in the books was one of my absolute favorites, and I think Harry's digging the grave for him without magic was a great tribute to a great little guy. I hope they keep it in the movie - and I hope they keep it in as Dobby, not Kreacher. I know that a lot of Dobby stuff has been cut out of the movies, but it would mean a lot to me, as a fan of the books, to see Dobby's burial.

I was also surprised by what a Christ figure Harry became in the end. I was an English major in college, so "Christ figure" is pretty common to me, but sacrificing oneself (and dying, to some degree, I guess) so that others may live, and then rising again? I'm not sure that I've seen anything quite that blatant since Sunday school.

I was talking to one of the ladies I work with about the books, and we agreed that it was obvious that they were British fiction (or, non-American, I suppose) because of the casual use of alcohol - butter beer from PoA on, Mead in HBP, and firewhisky(!) in DH. My grandmother is Spanish and spent most of her late childhood/young adulthood in England, and she actually didn't realize that she wasn't legally supposed to give me wine as a teenager until my uncle (a cop) pointed it out. I thought that the kids were really quite believable 17 yr. olds, even if they were perhaps a bit innocent and naive for their situation.

I loved the graveyard scene. Partially, I think, because a few weeks ago when I was visiting my grandparents in AL/MS, my dad took me to see the graves of my great-grandparents and great-aunts/uncles, and it meant a lot to me, so I identified with Harry there.

I really did love the book overall. I was surprised that there was so little mention about the loss of Harry's firebolt, but I guess that was small potatoes compared to the other losses, even if it was his tie to Sirius. I also teared-up when, after opening the Snitch, he asked Sirius if dying hurt. His sacrifice was so... brave, noble, mature and heartfelt, that the "childish" question made it incredibly touching I think. Anyway, I'm glad to have the result out, though, I feel sad that it is over and that, while loving Fred, I have gone many years without knowing that he was "actually" dead by canon dating. Also, it is always weird to remember that, according to Harry's birth date (7/31/80 if I remember correctly), he is "actually" 3 years older than me, even though I've grown up thinking of him as someone several years younger.

So... some scattered thoughts. Even a week after reading it ('cause I actually first read the book from the internet leak last Wednesday and re-read it when I bought it Fri. night), I still haven't quite pulled my thoughts together. I'm so emotionally attached to the characters that I have trouble separating feelings from the book which I don't really think is a bad thing. I guess that is what happens at the end of a series.

Whoa - long comment! :)

I agree, the Christ symbolism is really overt, isn't it? I think it's kind of cool and ballsy, actually, to make Harry Potter into Jesus. :)

I agree with much of what you said - I just wasn't feeling that thoughtful when I wrote this post. ;) You boggled my mind a bit when you said HP was older than us (I was born in '81), and then I realized that Deathly Hallows takes place in like..1997? So he is younger in the book, but older "right now". That's kind of funny!