- Spoiler Alert!
Of course it was bound to happen: there are people who are quite disappointed in Deathly Hallows, for various reasons. I am not one of them, and I admit to being quite discouraged at some of the negative reactions. Knowing this about myself, I want to try to be as fair as possible to the disappointed; but I want to examine some of the reasons for negative reactions and see if we can unpack them a bit.
Let me say this right away, though: It’s perfectly within the right of any person to dislike Book 7, and there may very well be valid complaints about the book. We can critique, as always, Rowling’s writing; there are minor gripes I have always had about Rowling’s style in places. This is nothing new. We can disagree about whether she finished it well, whether the plot was well-constructed, and so on. I’ll even include a short list of the things I didn’t like at the end.
Now let me offer a proposition: When someone picks up this series, 50 years from now, and that person has not been a part of the 10 years’ unfolding of the Harry Potter series; has not examined, analyzed, predicted; does not know the first thing about the interviews Rowling gave in between books, that person will read the canon alone, straight through, and will love it.
I think the major reason for so much disappointment is the nature of this phenomenon.
Married to Theories
Many of us spent a lot of time constructing theories that seemed to fit perfectly. We thought they were faithful to the details and faithful to things Rowling had said. Many of them were. I would consider the musings of someone like Felicity, for example, to be not off-the-wall theories, but different legitimate directions in which Rowling could have gone.
With all the time in between books to speculate, we were bound to do several things.
- Develop theories that mattered a lot to us personally. I love this theory; it would be perfect if the book turned out this way.
- Try to prevent Rowling from fooling us again. Rowling has been so tricky; I’m not going to let her get me this time!
- Desire to be the one to “get it right.” There are a lot of theories out there, but I’m going to be the one that knew all along what was going to happen. Then people will see how smart I was at analyzing the series.
- Over-think. No, that’s too simple, too easy. Rowling’s too tricky. It’s more complicated than that.
With so much invested into speculation, it was inevitable that there would be a letdown. That’s why I warned about this in my final words, and on a fairly regular basis on this blog (particularly after the Radio City Music Hall interview, when some of the Dumbledore-is-not-dead advocates took to irrational shrieking and/or backpedaling).
Rowling’s Writing Process
Rowling had outlined the books. She hadn’t written them. We knew from Goblet of Fire that the potential was there for Rowling to run into snags and have to re-write; most of us are aware that she had to rewrite a massive portion of that novel. I think it is unfortunate that Rowling sometimes answered questions about unwritten things quite definitively. It would have been better for her to have deflected even more questions than she did.
Grindelwald is a perfect example. In 2005, she said Grindelwald was dead. But she hadn’t written Book 7 yet; she had only outlined it. When it came time to write Book 7, Grindelwald was needed for the plot; and I think the book was better for his inclusion! In canon, Grindelwald had never been mentioned as dead, so, in fact, Grindelwald was never dead, despite Rowling’s statement in 2005. What finally becomes canon trumps what the author thinks previously about what will be canon.
“But she misled our speculations!” some might protest.
So what? What do our speculations matter? When did we begin to think that what we thought should happen is what this story is all about? It’s the story itself that matters. Lisa from Accio Quote and Madam Pince’s Potter Pages gives us the following reminder:
I would like to remind people who seem to have read this book with a checklist that Jo told us that “I’ll probably leave some loose ends hanging.†And: “I’ve never, to my knowledge, lied when posed a question about the books. To my knowledge. You can imagine, I’ve now been asked hundreds of questions; it’s perfectly possible at some point I misspoke or I gave a misleading answer unintentionally, or I may have answered truthfully at the time and then changed my mind in a subsequent book.â€
That about settles that, doesn’t it? I do think she’s toying with this encyclopedia idea for the purpose of tying up some loose ends, though.
My Disappointments?
“Disappointment” is too strong a word. I cannot be disappointed in this series. As Reyhan said, Rowling out-did C.S. Lewis: Harry’s walk to his death with his fallen parents, Sirius, and Lupin, combined with his resurrection (the scene with Dumbledore), gripped me even more than Aslan’s walk with Susan and Lucy to the Stone Table. [I can't use the term "out-allegoried," though. We're really talking about apples and oranges, because the flawed human Harry is a Christ-figure, not a Christ-allegory like the perfect, eternal, sinless Aslan.] But, sure, I do have a few gripes. They are my opinions. They are not the final word on the matter. Here are the two that stick in my mind:
- “Incredible Coincidences” – I’m borrowing the phrase from Felicity’s comment. Yes, Reyhan (and my wife, as well!) is correct: Rowling has always used convenient coincidences and narrow, lucky escapes. But it did feel like it happened a lot in Book 7. So my complaint would not be that it happened, but that it happened so often.
- Crucio! Yeah, I’m having trouble getting over it. It bothered me. I think it can be explained, sort of, but I don’t know why Rowling needed to go there. I’m hoping she answers this adequately in subsequent interviews. Alright, the Carrows deserved it. Dumbledore wouldn’t have done it. Period. Harry knows what Cruciatus feels like. A stunning spell would have been sufficient. I suppose we can argue that his anger got a hold of him, and his own human flaws took over. But I don’t like the potential for kids to read that torture is acceptable if we think the person is bad enough.
But for me, everything good about this book, which I’ll be blogging about from this point onward, completely outshines the few minor concerns.
The Closing of Canon
The key at this point is going to be whether or not we can read the books from start to finish, Rowling’s interview answers out of our minds, and see if it works together as a canon. Rowling will be questioned about the things she brought up in interviews that went unanswered: Dudley Demented, the late magical bloomer, the 12 uses of dragon’s blood, etc. But as far as the canon itself goes, I think we’ll find it’s fairly tight, even if there are things we’d like a greater explanation about (for example, how Dumbledore defeated Grindelwald when the latter was carrying the Elder Wand is an excellent point brought up by Felicity in a comment earlier). I don’t think we’ll find more plot holes in this series than we do in Narnia, though, and Narnia remains a beloved classic series. Once the initial anger dies down, and people have time to cool off, appreciation for the series will resume. People who completely freak out, feel betrayed by Rowling, forget about the past 10 years of enjoyment and abandon the books altogether will be the victims of their own bitterness and disappointment.
Fifty years from now, people who never read a word of Rowling’s interviews, who didn’t have the wonderful privilege of living through this phenomenon, will pick up the books, read them through, and will love them. I think, for now, it would be best to realize what a joy it has been to be a part of the amazing, unprecedented development of the Harry Potter series.
Beth on 
revgeorge on 
SchoolMarm on 
Arabella Figg on 
Loading ...
{ 83 comments… read them below or add one }
Thank you for those comments. I agree completely. I thought this book was wonderful. The ending was so satisfying and perfect. There were minor flaws like you mentioned about, little things that bugged only a little. All in all, I enjoyed the book thoroughly–couldn’t put it down.
Re: Rowling’s writing process:
Bravo! As a writer myself, I almost never end up following my original outline. It’s just a tool I use to figure out if a story idea has the “legs” to hold the weight of 500 pages of manuscript.
In the actual writing process, who knows what will happen between point A and point B?
By definition, I think it’s almost impossible to be happy with a book that had such high expectations. Yeah, I have lots of negative comments, but let me tell you why this book works. First she tied up a lot of loose ends. She had 6 books worth of questions generated and she had to provide us with a lot of answers. I think she knocked all, or most all, of the important ones. Second, the book took some amazing twists and turns. I remember thinking several times: “Well, I didn’t expect THAT.” Even though we knew all along that certain things had to happen (the destruction of the horcruxes, the final confrontation with Voldemort, etc) she kept us guessing about the path we were going to take to get there. Third, it was a good read. I mean how many of us read the books in 12 or 14 hours? Many started at Midnight and read through the night. It was hard to put down. You can’t say that about many books.
We’re all over-analytical or we wouldn’t be commenting on these blog sites. But the book satisfied my visceral side. There were plot errors that bugged me. There were contrived scenes added to answer questions raised in previous books. And I was left emotionally unsatisfied with some of the books resolutions. But there was a lot – and I mean a lot – more good than bad. And I’m grateful that I’ve been able to enjoy experiencing these books and this phenomenon in my lifetime.
CSL’s plot holes haven’t stopped a lot of folks from loving those books. (Fairly late in life he himself was apparently stopped short when a friend pumped him on the Narnian economy in Lion/Witch/Wardrobe. Lewis said there was not any trade with Calormen or other countries during the long Winter – upon which the friend asked where the potatoes the Beavers served the Pevensies were being grown, if the whole country was frozen and there was no trade!)
“Crucio” however is a horse of another color. It bothers me. A lot. I’ve noodled on it 6 ways to Sunday and can’t come up with a readon that it was really neccessary for her to go there with HP. She had a lot of other ways of showing how fallible/”temptable” Harry was, without having to do that.
And I’m glad Molly took out Bellatrix, but I could’ve done w/o the language there, too. I’m not a prude, but even given the extreme circumstances, it was a jarring note. Almost like JKR was trying too hard to be ‘modern.’ I dunno. Probably just me.
Pretty minor quibbles these. As a wordsmith I think she has her faults — but as a plot author she is just about unparallelled among her peers, imo…
Julie H, chicago
Julie, well said. I’m going to write an essay, after I’m done with the Dumbledore one I’m working on, trying to tackle the “Unforgivable Curses” issue.
Yes, the plot holes in Narnia are many and sundry, and they are glaringly obvious. One wonders how a genius like Lewis wrote so many of them! I have heard that he planned to revise the whole series later in life, but died before he could).
In fairness, Travis, I’m not sure this post really gets to the heart of the disappointment that people feel with the book. None of your reasons really clicked with me as expressing my thoughts. So I offer this not to argue whether it’s a good book or not, but to illuminate some other reasons why one might or might not be disappointed.
For me, it’s not so much about whether a theory that I loved or an outcome I hoped for made it into canon. It’s about how well the author succeeded with the points she did choose to write. Do they make for a compelling story? Do they tie in well to the previous books? Do they make sense in their own terms? Do they provide satisfying closure to some portion of the overall saga?
A couple of examples…
First up, a place where I was completely wrong. I didn’t believe that Jo would write an ending with strongly religious overtones, and I didn’t believe that she would leave the material world to give us a glimpse beyond the veil or communication with the dead. Obviously, Jo did all these things in spades. But I wasn’t disappointed by what she wrote – Harry’s metaphorical walk to the Cross, communion with Dumbledore, and resurrection are moving and compelling. I’ve re-read those chapters several times now. It’s a satisfying ending to Harry’s storyline, even if it’s not the one I’d imagined.
On the other hand, I was almost completely right about the facts of Snape & Lily’s relationship. But I was VERY unsatisfied by this storyline because of the decision to compress it all into a flashback right before the end of the book. To use your line of argument, someone reading the canon in 50 years is going to be completely baffled by this. Harry and Snape spend more than 3000 pages building an overpowering hatred for each other, with dozens of provocations on each side. Harry ends Book 6 attempting to cast Unforgivable Curses at him, and vowing that if he meets Snape “so much the worse for him”. But then he barely thinks about Snape for the next 700 pages. And two chapters later, he’s completely convinced that Snape was good, was loyal to Dumbledore, was in love with his mother, and has been ceaselessly protecting him for the last 6 years. Harry’s even taunting Voldemort about Snape’s loyalties. This is absurd character development, to put it kindly, and not at all up to JKR’s usual standards.
I’ll risk one more. I was a strong proponent of the theory that Dumbledore intentionally allowed Snape to leave the Hog’s Head with the prophecy, in an attempt to trick Voldemort into fulfilling it. Obviously this was wrong. But I’m not particularly disappointed by that. If anything, what we learned about Dumbledore showed that reading of Dumbledore’s character and weaknesses to be pretty accurate. Jo just didn’t choose to write it that way. What she did pick to illuminate Dumbledore’s character – the sins of his youth with Grindelwald – was compelling and well executed. No reason at all to complain in my book.
Doug, a very fair response. Your reasons for disappointment are what I was referring to when I mentioned valid reasons. The point of this post was to deconstruct the ones that are, well, less than valid, in my opinion.
I think you have a point about Snape. Here’s what I think happened: Snape’s character took on a life of his own, to an extent that J.K. Rowling herself never quite anticipated. Snape became the central, crucial figure of the story, while, in outlining the series, he was simply an important plot point.
The potential problem with Book 7, which I need to do more thinking about, is that Snape went from being the central figure who had taken over the series for the first 6 books, to becoming an outlined plot point in Book 7. I’ve got a feeling Rowling never quite grasped just how vital – and how intensely personal for the fans – Snape’s character had become. It was like she got to the end of HBP and realized, “Wait, this is supposed to be about Harry vs. Voldemort, not Harry-Snape,” and mechanically shifted gears back that way. Harry did very, very little thinking about Snape throughout DH.
Or maybe Fandom just ran too far with Snape. Lots to think about, for sure.
Yeah I agree that Harry using the Cruciatus curse was too much. It bothered me. We are told in Deathly Hallows how Harry was pure of heart and didn’t have the same flaws as Dumbledore but to use an unforgivable curse? I can only defer to Travis’ explanation a while ago that it’s a matter of who made those curses illegal. The Ministry? I look forward to how you tackle this in a future essay Travis. Molly’s language was surprising also. There were some other minor flaws but all in all, I loved it. Travis I think you’re right that maybe fandom ran too far with Snape but like you said elsewhere HBP was Snape’s book. I think to an extent Dumbledore dominated this one even though we hear him in only the King’s Cross chapter. He has become a more complete and admirable character because of his flaws and him overcoming them.
It’s late, and I’m tired, but before I call it a night, something about the use of the unforgivables, as well as Molly Weasley’s use of the b word.
The Queensbury rules go out the window when a megalomaniacal dark wizard is zooming towards you with the intention of destroying everything decent and good in the universe. And given what we know about how Dumbledore got his hand burnt, he’s not as reliable a standard for what is right and decent as we once thought he was.
As for Molly Weasley, well, she’s always wanted to channel Ripley from the movie Aliens. Bellatrix gave her her chance.
Travis, I agree with you that Snape seemed to take on a life beyond anything JKR intended or maybe even understood. He definitely was in danger of stealing the show by the end of Book 6, and she obviously put her foot down firmly on that in this book.
My sister wrote what I thought was an interesting comment on all this. She said that she thought DH was a great conclusion to Book 1 – that it really completed the story as it stood at that point. But it was a less satisfing conclusion to Books 5 & 6, because that’s where Snape (and maybe some other characters) really came into the foreground, and those plotlines were not handled as well.
As you say, there’s a lot to ponder and it will frankly be a while before anyone has enough perspective to evaluate how successful the whole 7 Book project really is.
Reyhan, what, exactly, about the destruction of the ring makes Dumbledore less reliable as a standard of goodness? You mean his moment of weakness when face to face with the possibility of apologizing to his parents and his sister?
It will be interesting to return to the entire series and analyze just how much Snape is part of the over all plot as opposed to how much we HP fans have developed Snape’s story by our discussion of the many questions surrounding this enigmatic character during the last few years. He was a major character in these books, just as Dumbledore was, and HBP was his book, though we did not understand this until the end of that tale. However, the series was not written to highlight Snape, his relationship with Harry and his relationship with either of Harry’s parents. I think the series was written to highlight themes of cowardice and bravery, friendship and betrayal, sin and redemption, love and hate, life and death , and the battle of good and evil. The Snape/Harry relationship was used to forward these themes throughout the series. The “Prince’s Tale†was a totally satisfying chapter to me—I have reread it and cried a few times. I was initially disappointed that Nagini was used to kill Snape, but it was an interesting twist for a man we thought to be purely Slytherin to be killed by a huge serpent. It was a masterly touch on JKR’s part to have Dumbledore at suggest that perhaps sorting was done too soon, implying that Snape’s bravery was important. And Harry, of course, completely forgiving Snape at the end, calls him the bravest of headmasters. (more tears!) It was a great way to show that Harry understands redemption and mercy.
Reyhan said: The Queensbury rules go out the window when a megalomaniacal dark wizard is zooming towards you with the intention of destroying everything decent and good in the universe.
I might have been more understanding, then, if they used them on Voldemort. I actually was somewhat OK with Harry’s use of Imperius at Gringotts. Griphook told him to do it, and there really wasn’t any other option.
On the other hand, Harry’s use of Cruciatus was gratuitous – a stunner would have worked just as well against Amycus.
And Minerva McGonagall’s use of Imperius against an already-stunned opponent is just completely indefensible. Especially because it’s McGonagall, a woman who has been the very image of rectitude throughout the books.
I found the Unforgivables to be extremely disturbing. And by the same token, I was quite uncomfortable with the way JKR elided right over what curse Molly used to kill Bella. If you’re going to make her a killer, how honest is it to pretend that she didn’t use AK to do it?
I can understand some people’s grips. Honestly I’m shocked more people don’t hate the book. It has gotten such a great response. No more hate about it than any of the other six other books that were also surrounded by a lot of positive press.
Harry’s Crucio bugs as well. That and the response to Slytherin house. Jo did say harry would never have to resort to unforgivables. I’m not bugged that that changed, because as you said Travis, Jo had her outlines but may have needed to use things to really get the plot going. I just hated that Harry wasn’t more shocked that he did it.
Oh and just so you guys know, (Travis I don’t know where to put this, the official DH disuccsion isn’t allowing me to type a comment in it, it’s gone a little Koo Koo)
But Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows has sold 72.1 million copies over this weekend! OH MY GOSH!
Her sales before the book came out were around 330 million, but this takes the series to 400+!
I love to keep track of sales figures. If this book can continue to have steady sales, expect it the series to hit over 500 million within the next year or two.
Just another example of how many people Jo is putting under her spell.
Reading all these posts I am really starting to appreciate the Deathly Hallows more. I hated it when i had finished it, but now its just more of a mild dislike
I actually wasn’t too bothered by Harry’s use of the unforgivables. It bothered me to the extent that he could have used any ohter curse other than crucio. It really doesn’t matter that the ministry that made it unforgivable was twisted because Crucio is torture, it is essentially the wickedest kind of torture “you don’t need thumbscrews or knives if you can perform the cruciastus curse.”
It didnt bother me in the sense that I was glad to see that Harry had enough power and magical ability to use a powerful curse like that. I was seriously starting to doubt wether Harry WAS only depending on luck just as Voldemort said.
Having “rediscovered” Tolkien recently, it seems that he did a lot of corrections and revisions after his works had been published and that they were in a constant state of evolution…but even before the corrections were made, the stories were still remarkable. I feel the same way about the Harry Potter books…
I like the way JKR draws you into the characters throughout the entire book…both their emotions and their physical state of being…when Harry went into that icy water after the sword, I actually felt myself shivering! When Percy showed back up at the elevnth hour, I felt elated…and was as teary-eyed as any Weasley! What an incredible sense of timing!
Snape didn’t get as much attention here it seems, (nor did Draco for that matter), but it does seem that all points crucial to the story were touched upon…I do think this book hinged on something much bigger than Harry’s feelings about Snape or Bellatrix or anyone else who had wronged him. To me, Harry’s focus changed to the quest for the Horcruxes and Hallows. He put the personal vendettas on the back burner in view of the larger stakes. I think the book’s direction was meant to reflect that… Snape was just one element, after all….. (Please don’t shoot!)
I actually think that when people complain that they didn’t see enough of a certain character or were left wondering about something, it’s actually the ultimate compliment to JKR’s story telling abilities…she’s made this world & it’s characters so real for us, that we truly identify with them & care about what happens to them…
Travis, you asked Reyhan, “what, exactly, about the destruction of the ring makes Dumbledore less reliable as a standard of goodness?”
I think she meant that Dumbledore succumbed to temptation and tried on the (cursed) ring with the idea of using it to communicate with his dead family once he realized that it was the second deathly hallow. Even as Dumbleore pursued Voldemort’s horcruxes he was drawn by his own weakness to acquire the deathly hallows.
Just had another quick thought….as the old saying goes Re: out of sight, out of mind…this was the first book that didn’t physically place Harry in almost daily contact with Snape, Draco , etc…. since they were no longer at Hogwarts
If someone you dislike, isn’t right there in front of you of you, doesn’t that sort of, over time, dilute the poison?
So Harry’s not thinking about Snape because he’s not constantly being confronted with him & he only regains his importance when Harry returns to the school…Harry doesn’t know it’s Snape casting the doe patronus, aftr all…
I think a confrontation between Harry and Snape also might have taken away from what follows…as would turning the story to Snape’s pov at that stage…
Hi. I found your blog via the Hogwarts Professor.
I was not at all disappointed with the book. Was it perfect? No. But then again I wasn’t expecting it to be.
I also agree with what you and others have said about the obvious Christian allegory.
I don’t have a problem with cruciatus. I think the meaning of the word is “pain” rather than “torture”. I think that it has just used by Death Eaters as a torture method.
Jesus took a whip to the money lenders in the temple. That would’ve hurt! Especially when weilded by someone physically strong, like a carpenter. I’m sure you can torture someone with a whip. I’m sure you can also punish with a whip- it’s been done for years beyond count!
So my take is Harry was rightfully and justly punishing those he crucio’d. Punishing the despicable bullys who practiced their thuggery on children in a place where they should’ve been safe and secure was a good thing!
Matthew
Just checked a latin dictionary:
crucio = torture or torment.
ok…
The Bible has many instances either historical or in parables where especially wicked people were handed over to torturers for punishment. Rather severe but apparently indicative of how seriously God takes the wicked and the unjust. I’m still ok with Harry using Crucio for these purposes.
Matthew
As for the unanswered questions, I agree that Rowling has the right to change her mind about including specific pieces of information, and she did say recently that she didn’t tie up every loose end in DH. While she may have had the rough outline of each book prepared, she didn’t necessarily have every detail or individual plot point worked out; for instance, in July 2005, she said Fawkes “probably†would have a role to play in book 7. Fawkes did not have a role to play in DH (unless we count his wand-core feathers, which is not what I believe she meant), but her comment suggests that she didn’t have all the details worked out six months before she started writing DH. Fair enough.
However, Rowling knows that millions of current readers hang on every word she says and there is a difference between information she says she may reveal in the future and something she refuses to talk about because it’s ‘important to the story and we’ll find out why later.’ To be fair, Rowling has refused to answer many questions that were subsequently answered in the books, which is another reason why people have grown to take her at her word that all will be revealed. And readers have learned that when she’s cagy when answering a question, she’s hiding something good, which is another reason readers are eager for the withheld information. Recent examples:
Amy: What did Dudley see when he faced the Dementors in book five?
JK Rowling replies – Ah, good question. You’ll find out!
MA: Was there anyone else present in Godric’s Hollow the night Harry’s parents were killed?
JKR: No comment.
I was certainly hoping she’d answer these in DH, especially about what fully happened at Godric’s Hollow in 1981, and I think it’s reasonable for readers to be disappointed when the expected information isn’t in the book even though I fully defend Rowling’s right to leave it out. This is not a case of readers believing that what they want to happen is more important than the story itself. It’s a case of readers looking forward to getting information that the author has told them is important to the story and then not getting that information. Also, just because readers are disappointed that explanations they were expecting are not in the book doesn’t mean they dislike the book they got. But for geeky fans, the absence of that expected information is going to be part of initial reactions.
For my part, there’s a lot I love about DH, and while I was certainly disappointed that open questions weren’t answered, I’m consoled knowing that Rowling will be hammered in interviews until they are answered. Moreover, you’re correct that future readers are going to be able to read each book in succession with no waiting, so they won’t even notice plot holes because they’ll be too caught up in the story.
I can’t speak for anyone else who developed theories about book 7, but I am not crying in my soup because most of mine were wrong (I’m more bemused that I was able to string together so many irrelevant clues into incorrect theories), and I’m not judging the book by how well it did or did not match my guesswork. In fact, I love chapters 33-36 even though they include the theory I most wanted not to be true (Harrycrux). Well, maybe not—Snape as a loyal follower of Voldemort would have shattered me.
The sources of my frustration with DH are the uneven pacing; incidents that don’t strike me as credible (like Hermione’s memory charm on the Grangers and Kreacher’s sudden appearance at Hogwarts); the way so much was left to chance as in the Horcrux hunting (although I’m still trying to decide whether we’re supposed to see these events as divine intervention, predestination, or blind luck given the very strong Christian imagery, which will determine how I ultimately feel about the very “incredible coincidences†in this book), and the lack of post-battle information about the members of the DA, Order, Death Eaters, etc. And I was expecting something big regarding four-house unity, but all the Slytherins were packed off quickly after Pansy suggested handing Harry over. According to Voldemort, the Slytherin students fought with Voldemort (except for Draco, Crabbe, and Goyle who hung back to capture Harry). We had Snape working behind the scenes for Harry, and Narcissa helped Harry but out of self-interest. After all the build-up via the Sorting Hat about the need for the four houses to pull together, I was puzzled.
About the Unforgivable Curses . . . I think the objection for many (including me) to Harry’s and McGonagall’s use of them is the sense that Unforgivable Curses are unforgivable because of what they do to the caster, not merely what they do to the victim (after all, there are many ways to kill, torture, and alter the way people think against their wills (see Hermione’s parents) but they aren’t labeled unforgivable). I know I was swayed by Janet Batchler’s argument that either Harry wouldn’t be able to pull one off because he’s too good or that Harry would be able to cast one successfully but would be harmed by it, and for all appearances, Harry cast Crucio and Imperius without hesitation and then walked away unscathed and without remorse for using them. Of course, now that Harrycrux is canon, perhaps one reason that he was able to cast Crucio is that LV’s soul fragment had grown stronger in the two years since the end of OotP. I can’t say the same about McGonagall since we were earlier in the series encouraged to admire Moody for refusing to use Unforgivables against the DE’s during the first war against Voldemort even when Aurors had the permission of the MoM.
There’s no doubt that Snape captured the imagination of the readers, possibly to a much greater degree than Rowling intended. Consider that Borders made Snape the focus of their DH marketing campaign rather than Harry!
Well what could they have done for Harry? Will he or want he snog Ginny? Hee. Doesn’t have the same ring.
Everyone’s disapointed about the “magic late in life” not being included, but I think that Jo snuck in the one who did magic late in life on pg. 64: Ted Tonks!
Ted tells Harry that he’s “fixed your ribs, your tooth, and your arm.” Remember, if you will, that his wife, Andromeda, was disowned by her sisters Narcissa and Bellatrix for marrying a muggle…Ted Tonks. If he was a Muggle when he married her, he clearly learned Magic fairly late in life since he’s magically repairing Harry’s injuries.
We were just looking for a major character.
Thoughts?
That or it’s Merope. Usually wizards show sign of magical ability by about seven. She, being so repressed and abused, only used or learnt her magical abilities after her abusive father and brother left.
I really enjoy reading all the thoughtful and intelligent posts in this site.
Excellent point about Merope’s repression.
However, that was Bk 6 and Jo Rowling specifically said in her interviews that someone would use magic late in life in BK 7, which Merope was not in. So it would have to be someone previously non-magical, whose well over the age of 7, that we actually see use magic in Deathly Hallows.
Travis, I was planning to send you an e-owl about this since I sensed your sadness over this yesterday, but then I woke up and saw this post this morning.
I think by far most people will think this is a wonderful book, to end a wonderful series. I know you came to the series just a few years ago, but many of us found the books much earlier, and waited for each book with the same eagerness as this one. I started reading them in 1999 myself. Each time a book would come out, we would devour it in a day, and at the end we would realize that some questions were answered, and some remain. We were ever hopeful that one day all our questions would be answered, which of course could never happen.
I am different from many people here, in that I had no pet theories. None. In fact, many of you will laugh, but my favorite book is Book One. Why? Because it started this whole magic carpet ride. In my lifetime there had never been anything like this. I know from reading your posts about PS/SS that it’s your least favorite, and that’s okay!
This series has meant so much to so many for so long. It’s almost like grieving the loss of a loved one now that it’s over. I know my first reaction was “I love this book!” My second was “Wait, I still have questions!” But that doesn’t mean I was disappointed. No way. The Christian symbolism was everything I could have hoped for and more. And Hermione explaining that a Horcrux was the opposite of a human being – that if you destroy a human body, the soul will still live on forever. Wow! Put that in your pipe and smoke it, Lev Grossman!
My only unanswered question that I can’t explain away is how Dumbledore knew exactly what happened that night at Godric’s Hollow. The whole story rides on those events, yet it seems there were no witnesses. I hope Jo will explain that one day.
But aside from that, I am happy. Let everyone grieve a little, then we’ll all move on to the next stage. We’ve all been privileged to be a part of this phenomenon, and we know it. It might just take a little time to digest. And you’ve been kind enough to give us a place to sort it all out. Thank you.
I, too, was most happy about the Christian parallels that were in this book. It made me not really care about the other questions that were left unanswered.
The unforgivables didn’t bother me too much, either. I kept wondering if Harry was going to come out with anything more powerful than expelliarmus (even though it did a great job with LV). But as Lupin said, he was going to have to do something to kill and maim the DE’s, because they were out to kill him and everyone else. It was like throwing water ballons when other people were using bullets. And if someone was attempting to murder my child, don’t think I wouldn’t AK them in a heartbeat! I really wish that JKR would have put something in there about the unforgivable curses only being used in the most dire situations…kind of like out laws about killing out of self defense.
The thing that annoyed me most, though, was the cursing. I understand that they are teenagers and are “expanding their vocabulary”, so to speak, but I think most of it was unnecessary. I even defended the language in the other books to my husband as we were driving to buy DH, but I cannot defend this book. It was blatant and could have been left out and still had the same effect.
The thing is had she left it out, for me, someone who’s just come out of being a teenager and still am very young and immature… I feel the swearing was very realistic. In fact her characters are very tame. No I enjoyed the realistic look at how teens act. Very nice touch.
Exactly Michael.
17 year olds not swearing an oath when they’re fired up? Not realistic.
And Oh so tame!
Effing, effing, effing!
How is this bad language? Better that F@#$.
Matthew
Nancy -
I too thought of Ted Tonks, so I looked him up in OOTP. It says he was “Muggle-born,” not a muggle. So he, like Hermione, was a wizard from his childhood — so he isn’t a solution to the “doing magic late in life” puzzle.
Michael
Dunno if I’m the only Pagan reading this site, but I thoroughly enjoy the analysis.
I really felt that the Unforgivables were the equivalent of throwing the moneychangers from the temple. With the Crucio, Harry saw something that so very incensed him that he wanted to cause the man great pain in that moment. Was it right? Heck no. It was very, very wrong. There were other things he could have done? Sure. Just as in the case of the moneychangers, there were other things Jesus *could* have done… and didn’t.
McGonagall never struck me as an example of uprightness as strength of character and determination. An “upright” teacher wouldn’t have told Peeves he was unscrewing the chandelier the wrong way, after all. Nor would an upright teacher have taken Harry straight to the Captain of the Quidditch team instead of punishing him for flying against the express orders of the teacher involved. McGonagall’s curse came right after she was told that Riddle was coming for the school, and that Harry *could* *not* leave.
Gryffindors have a very military mindset in some, perhaps most, situations. McGonagall was always Dumbledore’s loyal lieutenant. At that moment, she was placed in a position of command. She could not count on the prisoners staying nicely Stunned for however long it took, and she perhaps felt she had no time for anything long-term. She also had no idea at that moment where Snape was. Was it the right thing to do? Heck no. There are lots of actions in the military mindset which are, quite frankly, repugnant. But to the commanding officer at the time, they seem the most expedient course.
Harry didnot, it’s true, feel remorse when he was in Gringotts. At that point, he couldn’t feel the desire to curse strongly enough to make it count fully. But he also experienced there the lure of power, which he needed to do to make rejection of it and the urge to fight stronger later.
And think of this: He had a goblin literally riding his back at the time. The demon on the shoulder, almost literally? The tempter whispering in his ear? The one they couldn’t shake for days and days? The one who betrayed him at the end? I’m sure there’s some backup in Christian literature for that.
Then, too, we don’t know who declared the curses Unforgivable and when. Was it a Ministry reaction to VoldWar I or GrindWar? Is it Unforgivable for what it does to the soul, or to the fabric of society? They really sound more like the Commandments, which people break all the time, right or wrong. Thou shalt not murder, thou shalt not alter the mind of the unwilling, thou shalt not torture.
Just a few thoughts there…
Felicity, I agree with everything you’ve said! I think your “sources of frustration” with the book is a very similar list to my own, and there will be lots of time to discuss them. I’ve got posts planned both on the Unforgivables and the on the Unity of the Houses, which will hopefully open up discussion on those issues.
I wish Rowling had just made it a policy to never answer questions about Book 7. Here’s what I think happened: she had a lot of great ideas, but when she finally got to the writing, so much changed that she began to realize just how many things she wasn’t going to be able to include. Then, after finishing, she probably spent some time on fan sites seeing if anyone had guessed the ending, and realized just how many things she had not been able to include. I think this whole thing is exactly why it appears she’s settled on the idea of writing the encyclopedia. I think we’ll get all those questions answered, in text/canon form, then.
Devi, for the record, no, you’re not the only pagan who reads this site. Glad to have you here.
You’re certainly opening yourself up to a debate when you say Jesus should have done something other than drive the moneychangers out! [To All: Let's just not start that debate.]
I’ve considered the money-changers parallel. Of course, I would consider what Jesus did a righteous action out of righteous anger, but that’s what would kill the parallel, if indeed Bellatrix is correct that righteous anger cannot back up a Cruciatus curse.
If what Harry did was wrong, of course, then that’s our explanation. But of all the places in the series where Harry has done something wrong and gotten away with it, this is probably the only one where I really wish Rowling would have provided some commentary to say that it was wrong. I think it’s particularly shocking in light of the current debate in the world about torture interrogations.
I’m not of the opinion that anything other than murder tears the soul. And I don’t even think every use of Avada Kedavra tears the soul. Rowling is not a pacifist. She believes there is a time to kill, righteously.
Thanks for the welcome, Travis… and sorry for touching on what might be a sore topic! Note that I didn’t say he *should,* but that he *could,* which to me is a big difference.
I don’t put it past Bellatrix to lie or just obscure anything that might give her prey a weapon. To cause despair was certainly something she enjoyed, and if that kind of a lie would do it, she would cheerfully have lied away. She’s an unreliable source of information, for all Harry believed her. If righteous anger could not power the Curses, Molly’d have been unable to do what she did at the end.
Devi, not a sore topic. I’m a theologian, and I know how touchy we can be, so I just thought I’d head that one off at the pass
Your words in conjunction with the statement that Harry was very, very wrong made it sound like Jesus was “very, very wrong.” Even if you do think that, this isn’t the place to debate it, so I thought I’d say something to stop it before it started.
Excellent point about Molly at the end. You’ve just helped my essay on the unforgivables. Thanks.
ALL: I’ve added an incredibly important Rowling quote to the essay above. (Hat tip to Lisa of Accio Quote.)
Travis, thanks so much for all your insight on the reactions of some who are disappointed. (I actually read a comment somewhere that someone thought this was the worst of the series, which truly baffles me. I can only think that the person didn’t get the book that they themselves would have written–as you pointed out, too tied to their own theories.)
Like most of you I’m still struggling with Crucio. Don’t know if I’ll ever get past that one, but maybe someday. The language? While I didn’t like it, I didn’t let it bother me coming from the kids, but I wish Rowling had given Molly something a different word to express her outrage and grief at what Bellatrix had done and was trying to do to her children. Though, now that I put it that way, I’m not sure what would come out of my mouth were I in a similar position–so maybe I’ll get over that one sooner than I thought.
I’ve said elsewhere that I loved this book. When I finished, bleary eyed from lack of sleep and a lot of crying, I walked around the room just holding the closed finished book close to me. I still couldn’t put it down.
Many of the things that I thought would happen did, though not at all in the way I thought. And I was surprised that I was OK with Harry having that fragment of Voldemort’s soul in him. But the image of a piece of Riddle’s soul, clinging to life, and finding only Harry worked well. I think what I had always objected to was that so many of the theories were too complicated, and I just didn’t think she would get that complicated for Harry’s connection to Voldemort.
One of my favorite ideas was that Harry had unintentionally been using Legilimency all along, and at the end, that’s exactly what he was doing, even though it was never named as such.
I enjoyed all the discussions about Draco-Wolfboy, and still wonder what’s on Draco’s arm (must be the Dark Mark, though, which is what I first thought anyway), and the idea that Madam Pince was Snape’s mother being protected and hidden with a new identity. But what we got for the person he had loved was so much better.
As I kept reading far into Saturday night (I read slowly, savoring every moment), I was so afraid that Snape was going to turn out to be on Voldemort’s side. So having Harry see him die, at Voldemort’s hand, and then Harry going to him, and Snape looking into Lily’s eyes one more time as he gave Harry all the information he’d withheld–that was perfect. I think my favorite chapter will be the one with all those memories compressed into one chapter. It was like Harry stumbling upon Snape’s diary, and suddenly being able to put all the pieces together–the reason that Snape had always always protected him, the reason that Snape had never said anything bad about his mother, the reason that Snape was so unfailingly loyal to Dumbledore. No wonder, years later, after he’d had time to think it all through, he named one of his sons after Dumbledore and Snape, and said Severus was the bravest of them all.
In the winter before HBP, I read “A Tale of Two Cities” and saw Snape written all over Sydney Carton. Carton’s reason for his sacrifice at the end was the same as Snape’s–he did all for the woman that he loved, and in giving his life sacrificially was redeemed. Perfect.
Someone said that Harry accepted Snape too easily. But that was another indication that for all of Harry’s bitterness and hatred that he had directed towards Snape, he did, after all, have a pure heart; he saw how merciless Voldemort was towards Snape, and there was that same part of Harry’s heart that was touched, just as when he felt sorry for the young Tom Riddle and for Draco when he saw him crying in the bathroom. Harry had already experienced feelings of compassion for Snape when he saw his Worst Memory, so that wasn’t at all a shock to me. He had much the same sort of acceptance with Sirius in the Shrieking Shack. And might there not have been a moment as Harry looked into Snape’s black eyes that he was able to see what was really behind them, what Snape had hidden from him all those years? I think so.
Pat
Travis and everyone (especially Pat), as I said over on hogpro, the Carton analogy doesn’t work at all. Two reasons: 1. Carton truly died a sacrificial death, saving someone else by taking his place. Severus was not given that opportunity. His death was merely a waste: lonely and meaningless. 2. As a direct result of Carton’s sacrifice, the child he was named for was born. Again, not so with Severus. Because he was not given a chance to save Harry or anyone in this book.
Travis, I am glad you acknowledge people have a right to their own reactions. You must understand many of us are mourning a character we’ve loved for years. As I said before, it strikes me as extremely mean-spirited of Rowling to deny Severus both any sort of acknowledgement of his sacrifices (i.e, a funeral) and, most of all, an afterlife. I have no doubt at all that she was shocked at how he had taken over the books and wanted to minimize him in every way. But the mark of a really great writer, when they find a character has developed a life of his/her own, is to change the book around the character. This is what Tolkien did for Aragorn, who popped unexpectedly into the inn at Bree and then required a backstory and explanation. Can you imagine LOTR without Aragorn?!
I’d say this book is second from the bottom on my list; HBP remains my least favorite, because I couldn’t stand Harry in that book. In this one, I am extremely disturbed by the use of Unforgivables, and don’t think “Crucio” in particular can be justified. Nor should it be. Otherwise, I was frustrated by things that have bothered me in these books all along: Ginny the nonentity; the moral double standard, where the ‘good guys’ get to do whatever they want just because they are the ‘good guys’; the failure to address *any* of the serious flaws in the Wizarding World; evil Slytherin children (you mean to tell me that, Snape and Slughorn having been proven ‘good guys’*, not *one* of the kids they taught would have fought for the right? How cheap; what an awful message, that you are condemned as evil just because you get sorted into Slytherin at 11 years old!).
I could go on, but I won’t. Rowling certainly wrote a Christian book, in her fashion, and there are things in it that are lovely, but she doesn’t begin to compare to Lewis and Tolkien in my eyes. She is just not in their league. I was hoping she would prove to be; I was hoping this book would have a moral depth and clarity that, IMHO, it sadly lacks.
So I am disappointed because I was hoping for a classic and got a second rate book. I feel even worse because the really good things in the book, and the message she was apparently striving to convey, are so worthwhile. (And yes, Snape deserved so much more.)(*I will tell you what most disturbs me about the lack of an afterlife for Snape. It’s pretty clear Rowling is a Calvinist who believes in predestination, and – after having written him as essentially a saint and martyr in my tradtion, I’m awfully afraid she’s condemned him to hell. Harry’s naming his little boy after him says nothing at all about Snape’s trajectory and a great deal about Harry’s. Now, could someone please convince me I am wrong? I would be grateful!)
I had no theories or anything going into this. Truthfully, I’m not that gifted with analyzing stories. So, small loose ends doesn’t really bother me. I can’t say that I’m disappointed by the book. The book itself was absolutely tremendous! I’m in a state of mourning I suppose. I mourn for Fred and Dobby, Lupin and Tonks, and for the fact that there will be no more of these books to look forward to, no future visits to Hogwarts, no Quidditch, no more going to the Burrow, and I’m even saddened by there being no further visits to Privet Drive (weird, I know).
There is always the prospect of rereading the series, but it will now be in light of knowing everything. The antics of Fred and George will from now on be bittersweet.
Dn Kevin
I can forgive a lot of plot conveniences and loopholes. I’ve never read any ambitious novel or shortstory that didn’t have something wrong with it. The only two real gripes I have concern characters and their thematic importances:
1) Sorry. Whatever Rowling did or did not anticipate in terms of Snape’s character and his resonance with fans, she fully and completely realized him as a central figure in Harry’s journey, and developed him accordingly. He is the only character in the books with whom Rowling goes to great pains to fully muddy the waters of his morals and allegiances from day one. Then, his trials, tribulations, choices, and emotions are almost completely “backburner-ed” here. I could have dealt even with only another 10 pages to develop this in more than a Pensieve episode.
2) For the exact same reasons, Percy’s reentry was too convenient for me. His rift and division with the Weasleys was very deep, and Rowling had made a point of this for three books, making it (to my mind) an important thematic concern. I could buy into the notion that the Weasleys would welcome him back with open arms, or at least Arthur and Molly could, anyway. But Percy hadn’t shown an ounce of contrition or humility since PS, then he suddenly reemerges from obscurity essentially saying “I was an idiot”…!? I just couldn’t believe it.
Rowling had a lot to do in this book, and I think all of us here realize that. She had to cover a lot of important bases very quickly. In some ways, she wrote herself into a corner, raising some really relevant questions for our times and equivocating on them to some degree because time and space seemingly demanded that she do so(particularly, the other magical brethren and the Unforgiveable Curses). And even though I wouldn’t agree, I fear academia in general will hang her out to dry over this.
Sorry for the double-post, but I had to run earlier…
I did want to make a point of the fact that I liked the book immensely. Parts of it dragged a bit, but it was very exciting.
Particularly, Harry’s death chapter and communion with Dumbledore was an amazing bit of writing. The image of Voldemort’s soul lying in a fetal positin under the bench and whimpering childlike was the terrifying and heartbreaking at the same time. She managed to take this one image and pack so much into it from Voldemort’s backstory and literary allusion that it ranks up there with the most deftly drawn symbols in the series for me. Although, I’m still trying to wrap my head around Dumbledore’s explanation of why Harry doesn’t need to die.
I had tears in several places, but the brief glimpse of George hovering over Fred’s body made me almost break down fully. The only reason I didn’t was because I got to the scene before my wife did, and I was doing my best not to give anything away. I’m getting a bit choked up thinking about it, now.
Mary, you have a point about how Ginny has been handled in the books, but her character is developed far more than many critics on this point are willing to admit. She is fiercely loyal, passionate, intelligent, and someone not to be trifled with. She has no problem showing her emotions, and I like that Harry’s attempts to get near her are often frustrated for one reason or another. Opportunities were missed in HBP, for sure, to really let her shine. But, I think labeling her a “nonentity” is rather unfair. And in terms of the alchemical structuring of the books, Ron and Hermione’s relationship is far more important.
And I’m a little confused as to how books built around choice as a central theme could be labeled Calvinist and full of predestination. DH simplifies some of the questions about good and evil more than earlier books in the series, but they’re hardly Calvinist.
I’ve thought of something about Deathly Hallows which did disappoint me: no one got to use the Cruciatus on Umbridge.
Reyhan, yeah…I was a bit suprised that one of the central villains didn’t at least get a little come uppance for being a Ministry “toad”.
I just don’t agree that this is about expectations that the books themselves didn’t set up. I didn’t have a bunch of pet theories. I didn’t hear all of JKR’s speculation and pronouncements. I only found this site after reading HP6. However, I did have expectations that the previous books set up. Here are my top 10 disappointments (in no particular order).
1. The Unforgivable Curse Throwing. If you tell your readers for six books that “good guys don’t use UCs”, then you owe them at least some exposition on why the thinking has changed. Otherwise, I walk away believing that JKR believes the ends justify the means.
2. The Seemingly Callous Discarding of Major Characters. Yes, I knew a lot of people were likely to die, but after I’ve invested 6 books in getting to know some of these people, I’d at least like a shot at some closure.
I honestly felt saddest in some ways when Hedwig died. She was inconvenient to the plot, and so was the most callously discarded of all.
3. Irrational Omnipotence. Dumbledore just knows way too much (and, at the same time, too little – see #5)! As others have pointed out, he shouldn’t know everything that went on in Godric’s Hollow unless he was there. More important, though, he depends on a long chain of unlikely events (including Harry being present at Snape’s death) to ensure his hero has the memories and tools he needs to defeat the bad guy.
4. Unfulfilled or Unexplained Prophecies. It was necessary for the four houses would come together to defeat the threat to Hogwarts. Lily’s “sacrifice” created the strong, protective magic that saved Harry for 17 years. I think the child in the 7th month prophecy belongs in here as well (I still think she set Neville up for a bigger role – if not, why name the other possible child?).
5. Missed Opportunities For Smart People. Why didn’t Dumbledore speculate that a horcrux might be in the Malfoy vault? Why wasn’t Snape more prepared for Voldemort’s betrayal? Why didn’t Dumbledore simply TELL Harry more of the things he needed to know? Hermione seemed perpetually prepared for everything – surely these men are at least as able to prepare as a 17 year old girl?
6. Weaknesses Only Our Heroes Can Exploit. A dragon that can be released with a simple spell. A Horcrux that can be destroyed by the worst magician in the class. A diadam that can be found in a single hour, even when it’s been lost for hundreds of years (in a room that apparently everyone at Hogwarts visits).
7. Complete Turnabout In Expected Character. Kreature discarding years of hatred and conditioning based on one act of kindness? Percy’s instantaneous transformation, and even faster acceptance of his return from his family? Harry’s willingness to rip off the goblin? Are these the same characters I’ve loved (or hated) for six books?
And yes…Mrs. Weasley shouting b****, too.
8. Dumbledore’s Lack of Love. At one point, Harry says “Look what he asked from me, Hermione! Risk your life, Harry! And again! And again! And don’t expect me to explain everything, just trust me blindly, trust that I know what I’m doing, trust me even though I don’t trust you! Never the whole truth! Never!”
“‘He loved you,’Hermione whispered. ‘I know he loved you.’”
Harry dropped his arms.
“‘I don’t know who he loved, Hermione, but it was never me. This isn’t love, the mess he’s left me in.’”
So…is that where we leave it at King’s Cross? Dumbledore does explain…but he never says the words I’ve been waiting to hear for SEVEN BOOKS: “I loved you, Harry.”
The chapter’s all about him and why he chose what he did. Important information, but intensely unsatisfying emotionally…and more than a little narcissistic.
9. The Aborted Sacrifice. “Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world.” A central theme to our mythology is the need for great sacrifice to defeat great evil. Intention is not the same as action.
Instead, Harry is “purified” without any real consequence to himself except (intense, granted) fear. Voldemort taunts the bystanders at the end by saying “He was nothing, ever, but a boy who relied on others to sacrifice themselves for him!” and, in a sense, this is true. Harry already knows from Dumbledore that he will be able to defeat Voldemort’s wand, so there’s no real danger to him in the battle. It’s just cleanup.
10. The Feeling At The End. I just don’t feel like the books paid off. I wanted to know WHY Lily’s sacrifice worked, WHY Snape chose to do what he did, WHY Dumbledore was so seemingly willing to throw Harry into the chopper. Most of all, I wanted to FEEL those experiences. I didn’t feel Lily’s death, or Snape’s death or Dumbledore’s love, or Harry’s failure/sacrifice/redemption.
Yes, I cried about Dobby. I was chilled by Harry’s walk and will never forget the line “Does it hurt?” [I KNOW this was the chapter she wrote many years ago.] And the images of Snape as an unloved child were horrible and beautiful. But everything around those moments fell apart for me, and at the end I was left with the emotion of “that was it? that was all?”
Travis, I’m going to address you again personally here, since you seemed offended by a comment of mine in another post. I was not intending to be offensive, but I knew you would take it that way, and that you would rebutt my comment point by point. You typically do that with posts that are critical of JKR.
I suspect you have disappointments with this book as well and are perhaps projecting those disappointments on the people who are simply voicing the flaws with the book. Please don’t shoot the messengers.
It was a lovely book, but it was not the masterpiece I hoped for, and therefore I was disappointed. I’m sure I will grow to like it more over the coming weeks, but I will never love it. I wanted to love it.
Ah well. Childhood ends for all of us sometime.
Liz, thanks for outlining your reasons!
Yes, I do respond point by point, but I do that on a fairly regular basis for the purpose of clarity. I’m just a systematic thinker.
But I have no issue with being critical of JKR. Like I said in this post, I have my issues, too, and I do think there are some legitimate complaints about the book. I’m simply of the opinion that this final book’s strengths radically outweigh its weaknesses, and that JKR has succeeded in writing the novel that will make the series a classic, despite its flaws.
If Narnia, with all its loopholes and many weaknesses, will always be considered a classic, so will this series, in my opinion.
And just for clarification – no, I wasn’t offended at all. I was just a little surprised by what I perceived as the “tone” of your comment – but we all know that tone is so frequently misread in text format, that I probably just misread you.
Like I said, I’m glad you’ve given us your list of reasons for disliking the book, and I’m hoping the insightful commenters here who both agree and disagree will take up the points and discuss them further.
mary, thanks for your comments. I’m not going to launch an massive attempt to “convince you you’re wrong,” even though you’ve invited it! Rather, I think it might be helpful to simply discuss a point at a time and see if we each can come to a fuller understanding of what she was doing with Snape in particular. To some extent, we’re just going to end up disagreeing, and that’s fine, but I’m sure we can learn a lot along the way.
I’ll start with your footnote. JKR might be a Calvinist. Maybe. She is from the Church of Scotland, after all. I’d be really surprised, though, given the way she handles the question of choice as it relates to the prophecy (including her interview references to MacBeth) if she holds a 5-point, Calvinistic soteriology.
But whether she is or she isn’t, I find it really hard to believe JKR entertained the notion that Snape was “condemned him to hell.” Yes, what Harry says about Snape in the Epilogue says a LOT about Harry, but I also think it tells us a LOT about what Rowling thinks about Snape. I don’t think Rowling put those words in Harry’s mouth only for Harry’s benefit. I think she basically concluded the entire story by telling us, the readers, that Severus Snape is the bravest character in the entire story.
I don’t think she “denied Snape an afterlife” any more than she denied it to any other character whose funerals we did not witness. I admit, I do wish there had been a reference to the retrieving of Snape’s body. I wish Harry would have said, “We have to go get Snape’s body; he needs to be honored.” But I think the Epilogue is meant to tell us that Snape was honored, that he was “the bravest.” This is really significant, because J.K. Rowling explicitly said that she values courage above all other virtues (interview here.)
So the case could be made that, in calling Snape the bravest man Harry ever knew, Rowling concluded the entire series by calling Snape the most virtuous man Harry ever knew. Or at the very least, she concluded the series by giving Snape the highest honor that she, Jo, could give to someone: “courageous.”
Liz, I think about how I would feel if I did not love this book, and if did not move me. I think I’d feel flat, and let down, and ask: what was the point?
You say that there were moments that moved you, Snape’s unloved childhood, Dobby’s death, Harry asking “Does it hurt?” Those moved me as well. To them I would add these things:
Harry’s walk through the woods in the company of his dead. The line:
“Beside him, making scarcely a sound, walked James, Sirius, Lupin and Lily, and their presence was his courage, and the reason he was able to keep putting one foot in front of the other.”
is incredibly poignant. One of her best.
I would also add Snape’s declaration of his love ‘Always,’
The conversation at King’s Cross, Harry and Dumbledore talking quietly while in the background what’s left of Tom Riddle struggles and whimpers; so many great lines there:
‘Are you sure we can’t do anything?’
‘There is no help possible.’
and:
‘Well, where do you think we are?’ asked Harry, a little defensively.
‘My dear boy, I have no idea. This is, as they say, your party.’
and the best:
‘Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real.’
Actually probably all of Chapters 34, 35. I would die happy if I could write those two chapters.
Two chapters and a few good lines don’t make a book, you say. Perhapse we read for different things, but the moments and the lines I’ve mentioned above do make a book for me. JKR is not a great writer (gasp!). But in this book she gives us moments of greatness that none of her previous books prepared me for. And those moments had to be earned. Harry had to live through six years of preparation, hope, despair, confusion, anger, victory and loss, in order to walk in the forest with his dead, and to have that talk with Dumbledore while Tom Riddle whimpered under the chair.
Go back and try again. This is gold.
To Mrs. Weasley who wondered “how Dumbledore knew exactly what happened that night at Godric’s Hollow. The whole story rides on those events, yet it seems there were no witnesses.”
But there was a witness — Harry. We know that Harry had memories of that night because he relives them – the screaming, the green light. It seems to me that if Dumbledore had used legilimancy (spelling?) on baby Harry when he found him — he would have see in the baby’s mind/memories the scene of Lily throwing herself in front of Voldemort to stop the curse. And he would have been able to surmise what happened.
Okay, I’ll have a go at some of Liz’s points.
Forgive me for saying so, but I think Liz sometimes has a tendency to make assumptions about the things she didn’t like. For instance:
1. “The Unforgivable Curse Throwing” – I don’t like it either. I think the book would be better without it. However, that doesn’t mean “JKR believes the ends justify the means”. It could just as easily mean good people don’t always do the right thing, esp. in such overwhelmingly stressful situations.
2. “The Seemingly Callous Discarding of Major Characters”. I understand wanting closure, but I don’t think that’s realistic to think she could’ve managed a scene such as Dobby’s burial in every case for a variety of reasons: time and space, the flow of the storyline, etc. It would have made the book TOO emotionally exhausting, not to mention that really, the characters would have been crippled, unable to carry on with what had to be done. Postponing grief in the middle of a war – that’s realistic.
3. “Irrational Omnipotence”. I don’t find that too different in this book than the others. I know some have a real problem with Dumbledore knowing what went on in Godric’s Hollow, but this just hasn’t ever bothered me. I never felt like I was given any reason to believe ‘we’ (Harry or the readers) know all there is to know about Dumbledore’s abilities. In fact, we are given the distinct impression that he is one of the greatest wizards ever. It would therefore be totally impractical for us to to be given the knowledge of how he does everything he does.
Next point: Dumbledore certainly does not depend on Harry ‘being present at Snapes death death’. Dumbledore depends on Snape finding a way to relay that info to Harry- Harry’s presence at Snapes death just happens to be the way it was done. That is more of JKR’s dependency on coincidence (or predestination if you believe that’s what it is). Other’s have commented on that plenty, and it’s not new to this series, though a bit heavy in this book.
Also, I’d point out that Dumbledore is not depending on pure luck or chance – he has been shown to have the wisdom? to successfully predict what will happen and who will do what – he’s not just hoping. He believes he is right, as he so often is- LV DID start protecting the snake.
4. “Unfulfilled or Unexplained Prophecies. It was necessary for the four houses would come together to defeat the threat to Hogwarts.”
How is this unfulfilled? They nearly lost Hogwarts. It seemed to me that the physical structure of the school was HUGELY damaged. And the cooperation and trust that was necessary to create the community of Hogwarts was also very nearly destroyed. And it took the help of various members of the one House holding out (Slytherins) to secure the victory that enabled the good guys to rebuild both the physical structure and also the ‘community’ of Hogwarts.
I think Neville was hard for her to fit into the structure of this book until near the end – but when she did fit him in – WOW! I loved it. He had really more than fulfilled any expectations I had for him. Leader of the Hogwarts rebellion?? C’mon! Neville being the leader of anything is SUCH a leap! And Hogwarts was Not a safe place to be doing such a thing. Plus, not only did he destroy the last horcrux, the way in which he did it verified him as a hero and a true Gryffindor.
5. “Missed Opportunities For Smart People”
“Why didn’t Dumbledore speculate that a horcrux might be in the Malfoy vault?”
How do you know he didn’t??? I think it was pretty clear that, although he knew he was going to die, he didn’t expect to die on the night that he did.
“Why didn’t Dumbledore simply TELL Harry more of the things he needed to know?” Two reasons. 1. He couldn’t have told him everything ahead of time. Can you imagine if Harry had spent to years agonizing over the knowledge that he had to let Voldemort kill him? How would that have changed his actions and intentions? And he couldn’t be told that it was actually because it would be his best chance at survival. That wouldv’e created a paradox making the whole thing unworkable.
2. Because it is a writer’s device. It would not have been the same series if Harry had not been on a series of quests. It would nullify much of the point of the entire series.
Okay, I’ve done all I have time for now.
I wanted to a raise a disappointment that hasn’t really come up in this thread. Perhaps Travis would describe this is as nitpicking or just a plot hole, but here goes…
After a second read of the book, I was quite bothered by how much the plot hung on Harry’s ability to read Voldemort’s mind. In Book 5, Snape told us that Legilimency did not allow you to read someone’s mind, but rather to see images and emotions. In Book 6, Dumbledore told Harry that Voldemort had begun practicing Occlumency so that Harry could not penetrate his mind again. And later, Dumbledore reminded Harry that Harry was not a very good Occlumens.
But then for this book, Harry is suddenly reading Voldemort’s mind for pages at a time. And not just seeing through Voldemort’s eyes as in Book 5, but reading Voldemort’s stream of consciousness as he runs through helpful information like where he is, what he wants, who he’s torturing today, where all the Horcruxes are stored, and what he’s planning to do next.
And despite never studying or practicing, Harry realizes that he’s mastered Occlumency whilst digging Dobby’s grave. In the whole book, Voldemort never picks up any hint about Harry’s location or situation or plans through any of these mind-reading episodes.
Is this just sloppy work on the part of the author? Is this supposed to be “the power the Dark Lord knows not”, and she just didn’t set it up well in previous books?
As I said about her treatment of Snape, this doesn’t seem at all up to her usual standards.
Three people on this sight have spoken openly about their dislike for the book (and a few others but three I can name have been more vocal). So guys, putting that into perspective, seeing that and seeing everyone else’s enjoyment for the book means Jo over all has done a fantastic job, I think. Those who disagree, thanks for stating why. I respect your opinions. Very much.
The connection Harry and Voldemort were having I think was due to the Horcrux. being around other Horcruxes, the one in Harry’s head was really triggered off.
I feel some people are looking into some things a little too much. Harry really wanted to block his mind, and only having once partially accomplishing that, he was able to do it again in some form. But he did like or at least find having these visions very useful. Harry is a noisy at the best of times. He was more than willing to put up with the pain from his scar when this happened. it helped him to know what Voldemort was up to. It’s part of the reason why he didn’t want to do Occlumency in book five and a big reason why he didn’t want to give that up on seven.
As for Voldemort finding out Harry’s whereabouts… that would be inconsistent with what happened in book five. Voldemort could SENSE Harry was around him. He may have even been able to see where Harry was IF he dropped his Legilimency, he would have thought Harry was more capable seeing into mind. What he wasn’t baking on was for Harry to have the Horcrux as the connector. That’s how I see it.
Doug,
Regarding the whole mind reading situation…
I think it was more to do with the soul piece that Harry was carrying that allowed him to get that information rather that legellimancy.
The spontaneous mastering of occlumancy is reasonable to my thinking. There must have been somewizard initially who realised that they could do occlumancy before anyone else. They must’ve then tried to teach others. If it could come to someone initially, it could come to Harry like this. Also, Harry was practicing. Everytime he felt a Voldemort episode coming he was focussing on controlling it and reducing the impact on him.
It’s fine with me.
And Voldemort was very busy with all his plotting and searching. His pride had him convinced that his schemes were unfathomable now that Dumbledore was off the scene.
Matthew
Yeah, the spontaneous mastering of “occlumency” didn’t bother me, either, because technically, he didn’t even really master occlumency. He didn’t stop Voldemort’s thoughts by closing his mind, but by opening his heart (during Dobby’s funeral), which was the whole lesson at the end of Order.
But yeah, his sudden ability to see into Voldemort’s mind in Book 7 was a little odd.
Elissa -
I too thought of Dumbledore’s possibly doing legilemency (sp?) on Baby Harry, but DD only saw Harry for a few minutes that night, and Harry was asleep. Plus, we were “there” with him, as were Professor McGonagall and Hagrid, and things moved pretty quickly. It seems DD knew BEFORE Harry got there; that was how he knew Petunia could protect Harry since she was Lily’s sister.
Ah well, perhaps Jo didn’t consider it important to let us know HOW Dumbledore knew, even though I do! I realize that in the end, to paraphrase her: it’s her party.
Travis, thanks for your response. I thought of all those things, and have been hanging on to them for some comfort. But I still would have liked some closure. Snape was, in a way, as innocent as an animal; there was so much he didn’t understand, yet he was so brave and faithful and utterly obedient. It would have been nice to see some of the mourning of our main characters after the battle. I, and other Snape fans, aren’t the only ones who feel this way, btw. One of our teen volunteers is, her mom told us, utterly devastated. She’s a Fred and George fan (in fact, that’s the name of her Wizard Rock band), and the death of the twin – and the lack of opportunity to mourn it *in the book* – have shaken her up tremendously. Would it have been so hard to show the funerals, after having spent 6 book with beloved characters? I’m sure many Tonks and Remus fans feel the same way.
And I actually agree with Liz about Harry’s sacrifice. It seemed too easy, somehow, and I see Harry as an everyman; I cannot buy him as a Christ figure. In time, I will probably read it again and may change my opinion, but I can’t do that now. I can’t keep these books around me; they make me too sad.
If you would like more of my thoughts on Snape, you can go to my blog. I did, as I said, love some of the things in this book, especially the depiction of Dumbledore. That Harry managed to forgive *him* really shows some spiritual growth! Some of my favorite moments, if I haven’t mentioned them already: Harry giving Lupin a piece of his mind (he voiced exactly what I have felt, for years, about this character, and it worked!); Severus giving Dumbledore a piece of his – his outrage that he was merely guarding Harry to send him like a pig to the slaughter. I actually loved the scenes with Kreacher, and disagree with Liz here (was it you, Liz? ). It isn’t just that Harry and the others speak to Kreacher with kindness and respect. It’s that they allow him to tell his story and express his grief for the young master he loved, AND that they honor that master themselves.
But I, too, was really upset by Hedwig’s death. That seemed cruel and needless to me.
I never expected this to get so long. Sorry! I won’t be back for a little while because I need to give myself some time to recover from my Potter obsession. What it comes down to, for me, is that I am not getting any of the strength, awe and consolation from these books that I get from LOTR or even Narnia. That you and others ARE getting that is wonderful – we all have our own ways of reading – but, as I said right now, these books just leave me sad and frustrated, and more so because there are some truly wonderful things in them. Juxtaposed with the horror and violence and the lack of closure on so many levels, even the beautiful things just make me sad. And there is enough sadness and frustation in the real world. I don’t have to seek out still more of it in books.
I think I understand why some are upset over the use of the
“Unforgivable Curses” by the good guys, although not fully, since I
was initially upset at Harry using the cruciatus curse. My
feelings have been tempered somewhat by what korg20000bc
posted. On the whole I’m still disappointed at Harry’s reaction, for
the reasons — doing it without remorse — given by several
commentators, but I need to think on it some more. I would truly like
to discuss this more in a thread devoted just to it . . . .
Also, Harry’s gratuitous use of the cruciatus — solely to
inflict pain, and not to the overall benefit — strikes me as
significantly different than his uses of of the other two, which
were for the benefit of others. I think this is, er,
crucial.
Overall, the uses of the other two curses by the good guys points out
a very important truth about warfare and the legitimate use of force.
There is a Midrash which is often translated He who is kind to the
cruel end up being cruel to the kind. [Yalkut Shimoni, Samuel I,
221] It highlights an important point, which is at the heart of
Augustinian/Thomist Just War theory, namely that there is a legitimate
use of force — including “the sword” (to quote St. Paul) — which
seeks to protect the innocent from the oppressor. In Lutheran
theology this is developed as the “Two Kingdoms” of God’s actions on
earth: (1) the kingdom of Grace, given and proclaimed in the Gospel of
salvation from sin through Christ Jesus’ death and resurrection, and
(2) the kingdom of civil power, where He rules in society through the
means of governments, etc., toward the end of a peaceable earthly
life. Each of these concepts (Just War, Two Kingdoms) shows that the
use of the imperio and the Killing Curse are, in some cases,
not merely “allowed” but, quite possibly, “required”. The real
question is “when?”, but that’s a very, very, large question.
[Aside: some of you may remember an Andre Norton book in which the Big
Lie was the command, it is wrong to take a life. Heinlein
betimes explored it in his works and, although less explicit, it
appeared in both C.S.Lewis and J.R.R.Tolkien. I daresay Ms. Rowling
is in good company.]
colorless, I have written a post solely devoted to the unforgivable curses issue, which you can get to by clicking here!
Thanks, Travis. I’m looking forward to reading and learning.
Do you also have one on the use of what some might consider improper language. Perhaps its my background in the dog fancy, but I don’t find the term used by Molly Weasley to address Bellatrix Lestrange to be obscene, although there are issues of propriety. My disappointment is with that particular choice. The common definition of the term is analogous to how female dogs — bitches — act within their pack. Molly, however, used it just as namecalling: not something which described Bellatrix, but something which showed Molly’s dislike (heh) for Bellatrix.
Thanks again, Travis, for the link.
colorless, I’m not really one who’s bothered much by the language, so I probably won’t devote a thread to that, no. I think if we had some very literal translations of some of the words both Jesus and Paul used, we’d find that there might just be an occasional proper use of strong language. (For example, when Paul calls his entire past “rubbish” or “dung” in comparison with Christ in Phil. 3, he’s actually using the vernacular equivalent to our current “s” word).
Travis, Good point about the use of language. I don’t think there are any words that are in and of themselves “bad.” Couple this with the fact that the majority of Europeans do not share our Puritan-esque roots and mores about such language, and we can understand a little better their use in the books. It is unrealistic to assume that even though these books tell a Christian story, that everyday language would not be used. I remember reading Lewis’s The Magician’s Nephew in which Uncle Andrew calls Jadis a “dem fine woman.” I don’t think anyone’s raising issues over this, at least I’ve not heard any.
Nor when Peter (?) calls Reepicheep an “ass” in Prince Caspian (?).
About Harry’s legilmency and occulmency and how he suddenly seemed to develop them.
Ever since the first time Voldemort tried to AK him, Harry has had the ability to pick up on Voldemort’s thoughts, especially at peak emotional moments – anger, satisfaction, frustration. In the past when he got these “flashes”, he has been powerless to block them out. In book 5, Voldemort used this channel to feed him false images. During book 5, and part of book 7, Harry’s friends repeatedly urge him to use occulmency to block out the images. He doesn’t because he wants to see, he wants to know. His lessons with Snape fail, I’m convinced, because Snape may be a great occulmens, but he’s not a very good teacher, especially for Harry whom he despises.
In book 7, again, Harry is battered by images from Voldemort. Once again, he doesn’t try very hard – if at all – to block the connection. Of course he wants to know. But then something happens. Actually, several things happen.
‘He felt Voldemort’s fury, but as Hermione screamed again he shut it out, returning to the cellar and the horror of his own present.’
Bellatrix summons Voldemort, and once again Harry is overwhelmed by images from Voldemort:
‘At once, Harry’s scar felt as though it had split open again. His true surroundings vanished: he was Voldemort …’
But this time he knows Voldemort is coming to him, and he neesd to get out, so he focuses on the present.
And then Dobby dies.
‘ … he gazed down at the tiny body, and his scar prickled and burned, and in one part of his mind, viewed as if from the worng end of a long telescope, he saw Voldemort punishing those they had left behind at Malfoy Manor. His rage was dreadful, and yet Harry’s grief for Dobby seemed to diminish it, so that it became a distant storm that reached Harry from across a vast, silent ocean.’
and finally:
‘His scar burned, but he was master of the pain; he felt it, yet was apart from it. He had learned control at last, learned to shut his mind to Voldemort, the very thing Dumbledore had wanted him to learn from Snape. Just as Voldemort had not been able to posess Harry while Harry was consumed with grief for Sirius, so his thoughts could not penentrate Harry now, while he mourned Dobby. Grief, it seemed, drove Voldemort out … though Dumbledore, of course, would have said that it was love …’
I actually loved this piece; when the conditions are right, Harry finally learns control over his access to Voldemort’s thoughts.
I think his mastery of occulmency is very well developed and convincing.
And afterwards, having this control, Harry drops in on Voldemort’s thoughts as he wishes. And why not? That pesky eight ball has caused him enough grief (and will be the death of him yet, at that point); he might as well get some benefit from it.
As for the objection that the connection should only allow him to see what Voldemort sees and not know what he’s thinking – try thinking about where you are, whom you’re torturing, whom you want to kill next, and where you put your Horcruxes without images.
As for legilmency, that’s not what Harry is doing. In computer terms, he’s accessing a shared ROM drive to which Voldemort has write privileges.
The more I’ve thought about my “disappointments” with the book, the more I’m considering a different angle. Most of us on here, at some time or another, have expressed some similar sentiments about the end of HBP, that it felt a bit disjointed and lacked a sense of closure — primarily because no one was around to explain some details to us.
So, I’m wondering: Are our gripes a function of the fact that books 6 & 7 are so interdependent on each other, in a fashion that the other books really are not? Books 1 through 5 can all function as self-contained narratives with a pretty clear cut Freytag model of Exposition/Rising Action/Climax/Falling Action/Denoument.
The last two don’t seem to do so, unless one really reads them as two parts of one long narrative model. Really, if one stops to think about it, there is very little going on in book 6 until the last few chapters, at least in terms of action. You can read the excursion into Inferi Cave as the kicking off point for what’s to come in book 7.
There are still some thematic holes that I don’t like, and I just think Snape’s story would have been better told if it were to unfold a bit more over the course of the book.
As for Harry’s Legilimency/Occlumency abilities…? I actually thought there were some things here that were pretty consistent. These scenes have always played heavily with the emotional and irrational component to Harry’s psychology. In OotP, the brief success Harry has at Occlumency is when Snape touches on the memory of Harry’s kiss with Cho.
I don’t know…still trying to digest this stuff…
I enjoyed and loved most of the book very much, but I am a bit disappointed, too. However, I don’t blame JKR for the issues I have with the book, but rather my own expectations.
“Snape is a very sadistic teacher.â€
“You shouldn’t think him too nice.â€
I should have taken her warnings more seriously. I thought Snape would prove to be “Dumbledore’s man through and throughâ€. He didn’t. I thought we would learn that all (or at least most) of his bullying Harry and other Gryffindors was because he had to maintain his cover and to collect “I-hate-Harry-and-Harry-hates-meâ€-memories to show them to Voldemort. We didn’t.
He wasn’t evil. But, after all, he wasn’t that good, either. Yes, he helped Harry and Dumbledore to vanquish Voldemort. No, he was not a coward. Yes, he protected Harry all these years. And yes, he did love Lily, as most of us had predicted. But what a sad, poor kind of love this was! A jealous, possessive and obsessive love. Lily, Lily, and only Lily. He really asked Voldemort to spare Lily, but didn’t mind her husband and her child being murdered. Yes, he did regret to have passed the prophecy, but only because Lily died. He accepted his “punishment†when he agreed to protect Harry. He could have chosen to try and see Lily in Harry, but he preferred to see only James and was not willing to let go of his hate for both of them. I hope, he finally understood his mistake, when he looked into Harry’s eyes before he died. Poor Snape – what a miserable life! Given that, I wonder how he was even able to love Lily (without understanding her) and to produce such a beautiful Patronus …
My second disappointment was Dumbledore. Not because of his background story with Grindelwald, the temptation of power and Ariana’s death. I actually expected something like that. And I loved him even more for the lessons he learned from what happened. But I found some of Snape’s memories quite disturbing, because I didn’t recognize the Dumbledore I thought I knew:
‘If you don’t mind dying,’ said Snape roughly, ‘why not let Draco do it?’
‘That boy’s soul is not yet so damaged,’ said Dumbledore. ‘I would not have it ripped apart on my account.’
‘And my soul, Dumbledore? Mine?’
‘You alone know whether it will harm your soul to help an old man avoid pain and humiliation,’ said Dumbledore. ‘I ask this one, great favour of you, Severus, because death is coming for me as surely as the Chudley Cannons will finish bottom of this year’s league. I confess I should prefer a quick, painless exit to the protracted and messy affair it will be if, for instance, Greyback is involved – I hear Voldemort has recruited him? Or dear Bellatrix, who likes to play with her food before she eats it.’
I can’t help, but to me this sounds cold and not very empathetic. Dumbledore does not seem to esteem Snape’s soul as being valuable. He knows that “killing is not nearly as easy as the innocent believeâ€. Of course, Snape is not an innocent. He has been a Death Eater, and we don’t know how deeply he has been involved, besides telling Voldemort the prophecy. But he clearly expresses that for him it is a “big deal†to kill Dumbledore, not just a “favourâ€. He’s got a conscience.
Why didn’t Dumbledore say something like: “Severus, I know it is a tall order. But it will not be murder, it will not harm your soul, because you will do it for the sake of others. You will prevent Draco from becoming a murderer. Voldemort will have no reason for distrusting you anymore. Thus, you will be able to protect Harry even more effective from within his inner circle. You know that I have to die anyway, and you will save me a lot of pain.â€
In Book 6 Dumbledore told Harry: “I trust Severus Snape completely.â€
In Book 7 we learn that he didn’t: “I prefer not to pull all of my secrets in one basket, particularly not a basket that spends so much time dangling on the arm of Lord Voldemort.†– “Which I do on your orders!â€
This sounds quite disrespectful and cynical to me.
In Book 6 Dumbledore told Harry: “I told you everything I know.â€
In Book 7 we learn that he knew (or at least suspected) Harry was a Horcrux all the time and didn’t tell him.
Why not? Every year Harry had proven that he was prepared to sacrifice himself in order to save others and vanquish Voldemort. When Dumbledore revealed the prophecy to Harry, he said it was a mistake not to have done so earlier. A mistake out of love for Harry, with the result of Sirius’s death and Harry feeling guilty for it. Did he make the same mistake again? Moody, Fred, Lupin, Tonks, Snape – could they have been saved, if Dumbledore had just asked Harry if he was willing to give his life to defeat Voldemort forever? And I don’t understand, why it had to be Harry (and Ron, and Hermione, and Neville) who had to destroy the other Horcruxes.
What exactly is the difference between doing something “for a Greater Good†and “The end justifies the means� I admit that I feel some sympathy with Aberforth.
I also share some of the disappointments that have already been posted here (one of them being the Unforgivables). But I don’t want to complain. Really. JKR did a great job and I am deeply grateful for all the pleasure she gave to me.
Rena, you’ve touched on exactly how I feel about Snape. I was going to save it for when Travis eventually does his Snape post, but I’m sure no one will mind if we rehash it again there (she says hopefully).
I was never a good Snape advocate, as in good all the way. He was just too nasty. I wasn’t exactly a bad Snape advocate a la seriously_black, as I knew there had to be more than what we saw. And I wasn’t exactly a Machiavelli Snape advocate either, as I didn’t really think he was power-hungry. I guess I was really hoping to see that he really did regret what he had done because it was wrong, period, not just because it caused the death of Lily. Heck, he even was a Voldemort follower at school when he still was around Lily, and knew she didn’t approve, and that didn’t sway him. So I agree with you, and think that although he was instrumental in saving the WW from Voldemort in the end, he didn’t do it because the WW was better off without Voldemort, but because he was trying to make it right for Lily.
It sort of reminds me of someone converting to their loved one’s religion, not because they believe it is the true religion, but because it would make the loved one happy. Not a “true” conversion.
I said this on another thread weeks ago – I just couldn’t see how, if he loved Lily, he could hate her son so. He treated Harry in the worst possible way. How could he look Harry in the (Lily’s) eyes and treat him so harshly for six years? I really thought there would be more.
But, as with all things Harry, in the end it doesn’t matter what I think, but what Jo thinks, and for her, it WAS good enough. So I accept that.
Reyhan, Travis & korg: After thinking it over, I think I agree with your explanation of Harry’s sudden mastery of Occlumency. His grief shut Voldemort out much like it did at the end of Book 5. I definitely see that in the text now.
I still don’t see a reason why Voldemort could practice Occlumency against Harry perfectly for the entirety of Book 6, but suddenly Harry knows everything important that Voldy is doing in Book 7. Why would Voldemort stop?
I think the answer is that Harry is growing in strength and so are his powers.
Also, Voldemort has underestimated Harry. He always took Dumbledore to be the real threat. His occlumancy against Harry was to stop information getting to Dumbledore. Now Dumbledore’s dead…
Matthew
Mrs. Weasley,
I think Snape was so nasty to Harry because, except for the eyes, all he saw in Harry was James- appearance and character and talents.
Matthew
Doug, maybe Dumbledore’s spell in the atrium – the one with the gong – had something to do with it, but stopped working when he died. Just a guess. I’m afraid, we will never know …
Matthew, I’m sure you’re right. But I still don’t see how he could harbor so much love for the mother, and still treat the mother’s son so horribly. From the get-go.
He wanted to keep Lily’s son alive – so he could continue hating him? That must have caused so much inner turmoil. After all, Harry was all that was left of Lily, and keeping Harry alive wasn’t going to bring Lily back.
Maybe Snape was constanly reminded of his horrible acts when he looked at Harry and the anger he felt at himself spilled over onto Harry.
Matthew
I can think of four possible explanations why Voldemort seemed to successfully block Harry’s access to their shared drive during book 6.
First, the access initially worked only when Voldemort was in the grip of some strong emotion. Maybe nothing happened to get Voldemort riled up during that time. Maybe everything was going his way.
Or maybe he was practising Yoga.
Second, maybe Harry did keep getting his flashes, but they weren’t that germane to what was happening. It’s like sleeping with a partner who snores: if you’re paying attention, the snores are deafening. If you’re not paying attention (for example, if you’re asleep) the snores become accustomed background noise.
Third possibility is that the link wasn’t germane to the plot in book 6, which was about the history of the Horcruxes. It wouldn’t have served the plot to mention them, so they weren’t mentioned.
This is not as lacking in integrity as it sounds. There are many things which we know are going on which JKR does not stop to mention (bodily functions, for one, are rarely mentioned in books, neither is eating, getting dressed etc unless something more interesting is taking place at the same time).
And the fourth possibility is that JKR forgot that she’d given Voldemort the ability to block Harry’s access, or remembered but needed that access in place and didn’t have enough time to develop a subplot which could reinstate the connection.
Take your pick. To me it doesn’t matter. I enjoy the end product: Harry seeing through Voldemort’s eyes. I especially enjoy the few places where the observer and the observee merge; watch how the “he” in the passage starts out as Voldemort, and becomes Harry:
“And now everything was cool and dark; the sun was barely visible over the horizon as he glided alongside Snape, up through the grounds towards the lake.
‘I shall join you in the castle shortly,’ he said in his high, cold voice. ‘Leave me now.’
Snape bowed and set off back up the path, his black cloak billowing behind him. Harry walked slowly, waiting for Snape’s figure to disappear. It would not do for Snape, or indeed anyone else, to seee where he was going.”
Neat.
I started reading through all the comments, and the more negative they became, the more frustrated I have become. I finally just skimmed the last. Sorry.
I loved this book. Is it perfect? No. Is any book? No. But it is, after all, Rowling’s story and not ours. She has told it the way she saw fit to do it, and I enjoyed and appreciated every moment of it. There are still some things I need to sort out, but I see that as my bias, rather than a failing on her part, and my view of what should happen really doesn’t and won’t change the story she wanted to tell. I’m OK with that.
With books, as with people, I think we find just what we expect to find (didn’t Dumbledore say that to Snape about Harry?). I’m not looking for my understanding of life and death or good and evil, but of Rowling’s interpretation. If we differ, that’s OK. She has shared her very personal view of death, the soul, choices, friendship, bravery, loyalty, and her own Christian faith. If it is different than mine, that’s just fine–it’s her story. If I want to read my views, then I should write my own. (Don’t worry, I won’t be doing that.)
I personally loved how she handled Snape’s death. Harry saw it and rather than feeling that hatred and bitterness that he always did when he saw Snape or when Snape’s name was even mentioned, Harry went to him. Whether it was pity for the way Snape was killed or compassion, it doesn’t matter–the only other time Harry felt something like that for Snape was when he saw how Snape had been humiliated by James. Why did Harry go to him? Wouldn’t anyone, having just witnessed the callousness of Voldemort killing the person he said he trusted the most?
By taking what Snape told him to take and looking into Snape’s eyes that one last time, Harry allowed Snape to look into Lily’s eyes one last time. Harry at any other point would have lashed out, or refused or questioned, but he didn’t.
Somewhere along the way, Harry has become more compassionate and forgiving, even though he didn’t put it into words then. He certainly did later when he was in the final battle with Tom Riddle and he told Riddle and all in the Great Hall that Severus Snape was on Dumbledore’s side. That was the public vindication of Snape’s loyalties. (I don’t think we needed to see a funeral for Snape or any of the others to know that it happened. We saw that it did with Dobby, in a very private but loving and respectful way. It was in a war, and they couldn’t exactly stop to bury the dead formally.)
The point of Snape’s loyalty is cemented when we later learn that Harry has named his son after Albus and Severus and that Severus was the bravest man he ever knew. Did Snape know that Harry had forgiven him? Snape was an excellent Legilimens and Harry wasn’t especially good at Occlumency when it came to blocking his thoughts from Snape, even though he did learn to block Riddle; just as Snape and Dumbledore had a chance to have a last exchange of thoughts on the top of the Tower, I’d like to think that Snape saw that Harry no longer hated him, and that was enough.
Did it matter that it was just for Lily that Snape did all those things? Not really. People have all sorts of reasons for their actions, some more noble than others. Snape loved Lily, and was remorseful and repentant that he had any part in causing her death. Should he have asked Voldemort to spare James and Harry, or at least Harry? Maybe. But Snape would have known that there was no way Voldemort would spare the child who was supposedly able to defeat him–no way at all. If Snape had asked for that, Voldemort would likely have killed him too and he wouldn’t have had a chance to do anything to atone for his betrayal of the one person he had loved.
The part that seems to be forgotten in much of the criticism of Snape only acting out of love for one person, is that Snape was so alone in the world. He never found a way to fit in, except with Lily and with the budding Death Eater crowd. What would have happened if Snape had been sorted into Gryffindor or Ravenclaw instead of Slytherin? That arbitrary placement by the Sorting Hat did the same thing that happens when we look at a child and voice our assessment of what kind of student they will become or what kind of person they are. That part of the story, in itself, is a warning to us all not to judge too quickly, based on looks, first impressions, or family background.
Rowling shows us what happens to children who are bullied or, like Kreacher, just ignored. We have Snape as one outcome of the bullied victim, making very negative, self-destructive choices and Harry, also the bullied victim, making nearly the opposite choices. The message there–we all have choices, but our personal history does have long lasting effects on who we become. Two children, with similar backgrounds, and their outcomes are radically different. What makes that difference? Sometimes we can point to an event or a person who intervenes in the child’s life, and other times, no one really knows what turned one child to evil and another to good choices.
Voldemort had choices as well, and continually chose the path of evil disregarding anyone’s needs but his own. Dumbledore had tried to tell Riddle that there were things he should learn and that his thinking was flawed, but he refused.
Even at the end, after Dumbledore had told Harry at King’s Cross that there was nothing that could be done for that damaged fragment of Tom Riddle’s soul, Harry tried one last time to offer Riddle the chance at redemption–to feel some remorse to possibly repair his damaged soul, as the book on Horcruxes said needed to be done–and Riddle refused. That was his choice, and it was the final one that condemned him, with no further chance of redemption.
So, I’ve said a lot more than I intended and never got to the Legilimency and Occlumency. My take is that Harry could do both of them, but never tried till he really needed that information about Voldemort’s actions.
Harry has been doing unintentional, if uncontrolled, Legilimency on Voldemort for years. Perhaps his time with Snape would have been better spent if they had worked that angle instead of the Occlumency. Well, probably not. Harry can open his heart and mind to others, but he can’t close his heart and mind, at least not without a lot of effort. Why didn’t Voldemort sense his presence this time? Voldemort was scattered and desperate, focusing only on tracking down his Horcruxes before waiting for Harry to come to him; he became more irrational after learning that some had been destroyed. In short, Voldemort didn’t have the concentration any longer to focus on planting visions in Harry’s mind or to block Harry out–his arrogance after tricking Harry two years before and blocking his mind for the last year led him to make yet another mistake of assuming that Harry still wouldn’t have any control over their mental connection–and Voldemort had no idea what caused that mental connection, so he’d have no reason to pay close attention to what Harry was or wasn’t doing, mentally.
I’m sorry that some of you are disappointed, but I’m just not. Not in the least. Unfortunately, I don’t think there really is anything the rest of us can say that will make you feel better about the book once you’ve decided that there are so many things you don’t like.
Pat
Pat, I agree. I must admit that I also hoped that Snape had a more “moral†reason for changing sides than his love for Lily.
But even after she was dead he chose to remain on Dumbledore’s side and to protect Harry. He could have argued that Dumbledore didn’t keep his side of the bargain and walked way. But he did everything for Dumbledore even though he couldn’t protect Lily successfully. That was a moral decision.
So his initial motive might have been egoistic but I think he’s proven himself trustworthy over the years, and his love for the best and only friend he’s ever had wasn’t the worst reason.
Regarding Dumbledore’s knowledge of Godric’s Hollow:
Obviously, Lily and James couldn’t tell anyone what happened. If we don’t buy that Harry could, either, that leaves one possibility. Voldemort is, to borrow a term from the Incredibles movie, a monologuer. Could it be that he told someone (Snape, perhaps, or another Death Eater) what happened, and that the knowledge made its way back to Dumbledore? Just a thought…
Oh, bah.
I’m getting very frustrated with people who say, “Snape wasn’t really good because he wasn’t nice.” Good and nice are two different things. One may smile, and smile, and be a villain.
I don’t have a problem with Snape’s love for Lily being his primary reason for changing sides. You have to consider the enormity of what he was being asked to do. To ask him to do it out of sheer altruism, without a compelling personal reason, is to ask him to be a saint. And to ask him to do it out of sheer altruism, without a compelling personal reason, for the son of a person who spent their youth tormenting him, is to expect him to be either more or less than human.
I’ve taken a lot of flak for saying that Snape taught to the best of his ability. That doesn’t by any means mean that he was a good teacher. There’s no question that, under normal circumstances, he’d never have chosen teaching as a profession. He didn’t like it; he didn’t do it well. It couldn’t have been any more fun for him than it was for his students. I’ll tell the world: it’s horrible to be stuck in a job you don’t like and aren’t good at. But he did it.
I also think his subject may have had something to do with his teaching style. His subject was DANGEROUS. His job was to keep his students alive and as unscathed as possible while handling poisonous and potentially lethal substances. He was sacrificing their emotional welfare for their physical welfare, that’s true. Either he didn’t realize that, or he thought the trade-off was worth it. His conclusion was wrong, but it wasn’t, in itself, evil.
I also don’t believe that he hated Harry. I don’t believe he himself knew what he felt for Harry. He was a complex man, with complex emotions, and there were so many factors in the equation that I doubt anyone will ever be able to say conclusively which is the only truth (if any are).
Trish, interesting comments. Did you happen to catch the Today show interview with Rowling from Thursday? She said Snape was not a hero, that he was an awful, evil guy, and that he wouldn’t have done a single thing for Harry had it not been for Lily. I think Snape’s bravery is key to understanding his “redemption,” but I don’t think it’s fair to call him “good.” It’s not so much that Snape is not good because he’s not nice as it is that Snape is not good because he’s a bitter, sadistic man.
As I’ll say when I finally get to my Snape essay – the “Good Snape” advocates were correct in their plot point predictions; the “Bad Snape” advocates were correct about the character of Snape himself (for the most part).
Trish, I don’t think Snape hated Harry as much as despised him. He didn’t see any of Harry’s good qualities, saw him as mediocre and full of himself, like his father, was jealous of his connection with Voldemort, and generally had no use for him whatsoever. But Harry had his mother’s eyes.
It is quite possible to despise someone and yet see someone you love in them. It’s a very odd feeling. It leaves you angry and frustrated and helpless.
I really didn’t like the deaths.
1. Hedwig’s death. I agree, it was pointless and stupid.
2. Dobby’s death. Why did Bellatrix throw it at Dobby instead of Harry? She’s obssesed with Voldemort, and would love to tell him she killed Harry for him. Besides, when you Apparate, it’s in an instant. Not time for someone to throw a knife at you.
3. Fred’s death. OK, let’s get this straight. The wall exploded, and Harry’s buried under half the rubble, yet he’s alive. Then they see Fred, lying there, not bleeding, not rubble on him, so how did he die? That was stupid and pointless.
4. Lupin’s death. What kind of parents leave their newborn kid? And besides, Lupin is a great fighter, and that really stunk.
5. Tonks’ death. What kind of MOTHER would leave her newborn kid? I mean, yes, she’s worried about her husband. But a loving mother in her right mind would NEVER leave her newborn son.
Becky, allow me to try a few counterpoints:
1. Hedwig’s death – the absolute end of childish innocence for Harry. A necessary step in Harry’s growth as a person.
2. Dobby’s death – the turning point of the book. Harry finally chooses to believe Dumbledore having witnessed the faithful Dobby, who was willing to die for his belief in Harry. Bellatrix missed her target (Harry) and hit Dobby.
3. Fred’s death – was he hit by the actual spell? I’ll have to re-read it. But in any event, Rowling has been brutal, and rightly so, about death. Death doesn’t have to mean anything. It happens, and it’s tragic.
4. Lupin and Tonks – this was a literary necessity in many ways. The story begins with an orphan and ends with an orphan. This was the decisive battle of the age, and great fighters like Lupin and Tonks needed to be there. Andromeda was watching Teddy, so it wasn’t that they just abandoned him altogether.
Thoughts?
Travis,
You’re absolutely right.
About Fred. You don’t have to have visible wounds to have life threatening or instantly fatal damag done. People die from seemingly miniscule wounds and survive horrendous things.
Matthew