Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows

[Betsy Speicher 0]

Book Suggested for rating by Brian Smith

[Alon Tsin 0]

I thought that the seventh book was wonderfully written, and it serves as a very good ending for the books. It was engaging, touching (

Snape's death, Ron's screams when Hermione is tortured

) and very satisfying to read.

[Brian Smith 0]

Warning: There are spoilers about this book in this post.

I found something interesting in the response by some fans of the books.

Many compared Harry's journey and sacrifice of himself - and his subsequent experience in 'King's Cross' - to Christ. I think there is some justification for this comparison. What I found most interesting in this context, was that many of these same people resented Dumbledore for setting Harry up to have to sacrifice himself like that. (And I read no posts which praised DD for doing this). They thought it was wrong of DD to essentially raise Harry to be a lamb who is led to the slaughter. Now returning to the comparison of Harry's story to the story of Christ, DD would essentially be God the Father to Harry's Christ. So, in essence, these people are condemning God for making Christ have to sacrifice himself. They are upset that God would create and raise a man simply to be a sacrificial offering.

I thought that response was definitely revealing - and potentially quite encouraging.

[Thoyd Loki 0]

I always feel a lot of trepidation before reading the last of a series. And I felt some during the middle of this one. Like "uh-oh, where is this going?" But, no fear! She tied up everything beautifully, and everything ended as it must have ended. But, she didn't reveal her hand until the last moment. It was great, the woman knows how to weave tales. Excellent finish to an excellent series. Who's the next writer?

[Joss Delage 0]

I just finished it yesterday. I have to say I didn't like it as much as the others, especially the first 4. The book is completely missing the humor that I found so engaging in previous book. Furthermore, the atmosphere until the last few chapters is very, very dark - it feels like reading an account on living under Staline, Hitler, or Big Brother, and the writing conveys more dispair and confusion than hope, in my opinion.

The Snape story is very well tied together, and that was very satisfying. I wasn't as satisfied about the King Cross station episode, or about the wand stories.

Overall I think the book falls short of the 8/9/10 marks.

[bborg 0]

Many compared Harry's journey and sacrifice of himself - and his subsequent experience in 'King's Cross' - to Christ. I think there is some justification for this comparison. What I found most interesting in this context, was that many of these same people resented Dumbledore for setting Harry up to have to sacrifice himself like that. (And I read no posts which praised DD for doing this). They thought it was wrong of DD to essentially raise Harry to be a lamb who is led to the slaughter. Now returning to the comparison of Harry's story to the story of Christ, DD would essentially be God the Father to Harry's Christ. So, in essence, these people are condemning God for making Christ have to sacrifice himself. They are upset that God would create and raise a man simply to be a sacrificial offering.

I thought that response was definitely revealing - and potentially quite encouraging.

Absolutely.

I suspected that Snape would turn out to be on the right side, but I was flabbergasted at the exchange he had with Dumbledore in his memories, leading to this line:

"I have spied for you and lied for you, put myself in mortal danger for you. Everything was supposed to be to keep Lily Potter's son safe. Now you tell me you have been raising him like a pig for the slaughter"

Essentially, all of Harry's frustration at being kept in the dark, all of the adults' remarks that Harry was too young to carry such a big burden and that Dumbledore must have meant for him to have help, climaxed in this remark. Dumbledore didn't want others involved because they knew they'd save Harry, and didn't want to be honest with Harry because he didn't trust him. In the end, he did have his reasons, he remained a "good guy", but the book admited the errors, which was good.

Anyway, I finished reading it last night and had some thoughts of my own.

Overall I thought it was ok. Harry faced off against Voldemort personally, which needed to happen. I was worried in the 5th book that Harry's role had been diminished, what with all the other more experienced and more powerful wizards getting involved. It was very appropriate that Voldemort continued to underestimate Harry (and Dumbledore), and that ended up being his undoing. I also loved how the kids at Hogwarts kept DA running, and that Harry had won so much support before his return. I was desperate to see him get the acknowledgment he deserved, after having to hide for so long.

I was a bit disappointed that Rowling continued to depend on the mysticism of the genre to explain (or not explain) how things happened. Such as, Dumbledore somehow knowing that Ron would need to find his way back to Harry/Hermione, and more generally having plans for them that depended on events he could not have predicted. Dumbledore had no reason to think that, given the little information Harry had, that he could succeed. The "clues" were pathetic and were only connected to anything through writer's conveniences. I think the book's virtues overshadow this weakness, but I was hoping that after so many years writing this story Rowling would have developed a tighter plot.

On the series as a whole, I really enjoyed it and I think it was both very entertaining (I love Rowling's sense of humor and character development) and upheld some important philosophic principles. The books are individualistic in that the heroes do not judge other characters by their ability to do magic or by their bloodline. I thought this was a moral that was very consistently applied and well done. It was an important detail that, for example, Harry was raised by irresponsible, neglectful and just basically nasty muggles, but that he later ran into Mr. Weasley who loved everything muggle and was obsessed with nonmagical inventions. The books were focussed on individual virtues, regardless of race. The story is also absolutist in that it does not pretend that evil is "fuzzy" or a "gray area", but something that must be fought with courage and moral conviction. And the values at stake are deadly serious; the heroes aren't just fighting unlikeable characters, but characters with malicious and deadly intent, carrying the evil ideas to their natural conclusion. I was amazed at how serious the series got, while still remaining optimistic and humorous (which reflected a very positive sense of life). I think the last book put a proper close to the series, and it will be a great literary influence for generations.

[Ifat Glassman 0]

Warning: everything in this post is a spoiler. (and prepare for some serious bashing):

The seventh book reveals a philosophical core of selflessness.

(Dumbledore) 'I was gifted, I was brilliant. I wanted to escape. I wanted to shine. I wanted glory.

'Do not misunderstand me', he said, and pain crossed the face so that he looked ancient again. 'I loved them. I loved my parents, I loved my brother and my sister, but I was selfish, Harry, more selfish than you, who are a remarkably selfless person, could possibly imagine.'

Then you have Harry's willingness to die so that everyone else could live - presented as his greatest courage and virtue.

There is the matter of the deathly hallows - the mastering of death and desire for power presented as a despicable sin:

(Dumbledore, about his desire to own the 3 hallows) 'Master of death Harry, master of death! Was I better, ultimately, than Voldemort?'

Why is being the master of death a bad thing? It sounds to me like the same type of philosophy that teaches man humbleness and talks again genetic engineering.

Also, all the self-pity and guilt Harry is having, whenever someone else is suffering and he did not prevent it, is selflessness in action. This core of selflessness was not so clearly visible in the previous books, which allowed the good atmosphere of the books to shine out, and give an awesome feeling of fun, humour and excitement. It has an overall good sense of life (take out the part of self-pity and pain), but bad philosophical part

There was also a lot of emphasis on pain and suffering. I disliked that. There was too much emphasis on the finality of death, and Harry's pain because of it. I kept thinking , at each new death "oh, just shut up about your pain and suffering already. 'nuff of your whining". I don't think pain should be presented like that, like a medal of honor on one's chest. I think there should have been more emphasis on the fact that they died defending what they loved, they died while believing they were doing the right thing, and not on the loss of life.

I thought Ron's screams were stupid, he just got in the way of Harry and the rest working out a plan to get out. Reminded me of the stupid blond from horror movies that panics during danger, stands on the spot and screams instead of acting/thinking.

Snape's story was awesome, I was fascinated.

Plot was brilliantly connected, not through one book, but throughout seven books. That's a big achievement. some parts were just brilliant; like Voldemort having Harry's blood, preventing him from killing Harry.

[non-contradictor 0]

SPOILERS

(Dumbledore) 'I was gifted, I was brilliant. I wanted to escape. I wanted to shine. I wanted glory.

'Do not misunderstand me', he said, and pain crossed the face so that he looked ancient again. 'I loved them. I loved my parents, I loved my brother and my sister, but I was selfish, Harry, more selfish than you, who are a remarkably selfless person, could possibly imagine.'

Personally, I thought that this statement was just another instance of Dumbledore's, erm, cluelessness, when it came to Harry. He just doesn't get it. It's been driving me crazy since Order of the Phoenix, when he conveniently skated around the idea that most of the reason Harry had gotten so angry was because Harry felt abandoned. They talked about the prophecy and putting Harry in danger and blah, blah, blah, but did he ever say he was sorry for getting close to Harry in books 1-4 and then suddenly not being there in 5? No. Grrr, Dumbledore, Grr. I don't think he understood that Harry cared about him as much as he cared about Harry. How could he, when he was too busy hating himself for the Grindelwald business?

So I think the above quoted statement is just another example of that. He's trying to explain himself to Harry, thinking Harry is angry with him because he was an idiot when he was young and wasn't the noble "selfless" hero everyone thought, when Harry is really only angry because he thinks Dumbledore doesn't love him. So Harry just kind of sits there and pats him uncomfortably, because once it's obvious again that Dumbledore did in fact care, he's not angry anymore.

So, my point is that if you're going to attack the books for selflessness, Dumbledore isn't really a good person to use anymore, since at the end of DH it's pretty clear that he's been seriously screwed up for most of his life. He hides it well, granted, but the point is that he blamed himself for Ariana's death to the point that he died miserable and still blaming himself in the afterlife. Hardly presented as a philosophical ideal.

The use of the word "selfless" annoyed me too, but I don't think it agrees with the actions of the characters. I don't think Harry acted selflessly; Dumbledore, however, doesn't get it, and he paid for it. Harry finds peace; he doesn't.

Then you have Harry's willingness to die so that everyone else could live - presented as his greatest courage and virtue.

Are you saying that given the choice between watching Voldemort torture your loved ones to death in order to get to you, and turning yourself over before he is able to, you'd choose the former? How is Harry's decision drastically different than what John Galt said to Dagny, effectively that he would kill himself rather than watch the villains torture her in order to get him? I hate to make the comparison, because Harry has never been and never will be an Objectivist hero, but in this instance I can't see why his decision was irrational. You could argue that it wasn't right of JKR to construct her world in such a way that Harry was left with only that option, but that is a different matter entirely. With JKR's world as it was, I can't see what else Harry could have done.

There was also a lot of emphasis on pain and suffering. I disliked that. There was too much emphasis on the finality of death, and Harry's pain because of it. I kept thinking , at each new death "oh, just shut up about your pain and suffering already. 'nuff of your whining". I don't think pain should be presented like that, like a medal of honor on one's chest. I think there should have been more emphasis on the fact that they died defending what they loved, they died while believing they were doing the right thing, and not on the loss of life.

I do think JKR could have done a better job with emphasizing why the died at the end of the book, a sort-of philosophical wrap-up, if you will, to show that Harry didn't wallow in grief perpetually after the war. The epilogue did that to an extent, but I would've liked some more in between the final battle and 19 years later.

That said, I don't agree that Harry should have just shut up about his pain at the time. It wouldn't fit with his character, and if he wasn't perfect in books 1-6, he shouldn't be expected to suddenly become one now. Remember that Harry was a loveless orphan for the first eleven years of his life; IMO, he's got serious abandonment issues because of it. Explains the whole mess with Dumbledore, and also explains why his first thought upon someone's death is something to the effect of "not another person I love." He's not going to think right away, "oh well, at least they died fighting for what was right," because he's too busy being angry at Voldemort for attempting to kill everyone he loves. I think he'll get there eventually, and get over his grief, but expecting it to be instant is a little hard on a seventeen-year-old kid whose spent most of his life watching the people he cares about get killed off before his eyes.

I thought Ron's screams were stupid, he just got in the way of Harry and the rest working out a plan to get out. Reminded me of the stupid blond from horror movies that panics during danger, stands on the spot and screams instead of acting/thinking.

Agreed, but then I've never liked Ron much.

Snape's story was awesome, I was fascinated.

Agreed again. I was very worried until I got to that chapter that he was going to turn out to be all Death Eater after all. The first chapter almost had me in the "Snape is evil" camp.

Well, there are my thoughts for now. I'm not sure how coherent I managed to be. It's been months and I'm still changing my mind every so often. But I liked DH. Despite the darkness in the middle, Harry got what he had always wanted in the end. I loved the epilogue. Albus Potter!

[Thoyd Loki 0]

Snape's story was awesome, I was fascinated.

I thought the whole Snape line was Rowling's master stroke. There was little else that was discussed between my friends and I between book 6 and 7 than where Snape's commitment lie. Here is an, admittedly deeply flawed character, who, through his own actions, caused the destruction of what he cared most for in the world. We find that he resolutely committed himself to right this wrong no matter what. And we find that he never wavered no matter the danger.

I was especially moved by the scene that Harry witnessed in the penseive (sp?), where Snape sets forth his Patronus that was the same as Lily's - which is a sign of his love for her. Dumbledore asks him: "Even now?" and Snape answers: "Always." I found it sad and beautiful in a tragic way. Whatever else is to be said of the book, this one storyline redeems (heh, a redemption story redeeming a book, well, I thought it was funny) the whole of it. Brilliant.

[Ifat Glassman 0]

...

They talked about the prophecy and putting Harry in danger and blah, blah, blah, but did he ever say he was sorry for getting close to Harry in books 1-4 and then suddenly not being there in 5? No. Grrr, Dumbledore, Grr.

lol!

So, my point is that if you're going to attack the books for selflessness, Dumbledore isn't really a good person to use anymore, since at the end of DH it's pretty clear that he's been seriously screwed up for most of his life. He hides it well, granted, but the point is that he blamed himself for Ariana's death to the point that he died miserable and still blaming himself in the afterlife. Hardly presented as a philosophical ideal.

Dumbledore is the symbol of the deepest understanding and wisdom. He is the backbone behind the entire series. Dumbledore is the one that sees into people's personalities and understands them. He is the one who predicts better than anyone what would happen and have happened. He is the one all other heroes turn to for advice. He is a symbol of the wisdom and philosophy behind the series, regardless of his actions.

The use of the word "selfless" annoyed me too, but I don't think it agrees with the actions of the characters. I don't think Harry acted selflessly;

I saw plenty of evidence for the selfless idea throughout the book. Whenever someone fights to protect Harry, he feels guilt ("if it wasn't for me, none of this would have happened" style), even though he fights to save their skin. One example is how he objects the impersonation idea as a plan to move him to safety, because he doesn't want anyone to risk their life for him, even though they chose it.

Then you have Harry's willingness to die so that everyone else could live - presented as his greatest courage and virtue.

Are you saying that given the choice between watching Voldemort torture your loved ones to death in order to get to you, and turning yourself over before he is able to, you'd choose the former? How is Harry's decision drastically different than what John Galt said to Dagny, effectively that he would kill himself rather than watch the villains torture her in order to get him?

The difference is in the motivation behind the act. The act itself is identical, but not the reasons for it. In Harry's case, the idea of letting other people die so that he can save his own skin is immoral. He thinks that since Voldemort is after Harry, then Harry should not allow anyone else to take Harry's place.