Got the seventh book. Read the seventh book.

In re: Deathly Hallows — stretches of the old brilliance. A few unbearable bits. Really, neither more nor less than I expected. For the most part, a rollicking, breezy read. Solid B to B+ that could’ve been an A had she not had to deal with all the nonsense she set up for herself in HBP. Assloads better than HBP–but it could hardly not be.

Yeah, I knew it was coming. Sev and Albus pre-planned the whole funeral. Feh, I say! Feh! And Snape’s own demise and the Penseive fodder he gave Harry would’ve been a lot more meaningful had Sev been portrayed a little more evenhandedly all along, or at least a little less lopsidedly. As it is, okay, I’m glad that there was finally something that Harry was wrong about and the adults weren’t. Sheesh. The whole Albie-Wan Kenobi bit while Harry was “dead” was tedious, preachy and predictable. Pleased that Dumbledore didn’t turn out to be Uncle Al or Great Great Grandpa Al or some damn thing.

‘Ship wars: who cares? Cripes, it’s just a book. Author decides canon, even if you don’t like it. Besides, that’s what fanfic’s for.

Whacking both Remus and Tonks was just gratuitous. Fred, predictable (it was either him or George). That Hagrid is still drawing breath, I find amazing.

There’s hope for Dudders yet, apparently. It would have been nice to have found out what had happened to the Dursleys somewhere along the line, though.

Albus Severus Potter. Sheesh. That alone should be enough to haul up Harry and Ginny on child abuse charges…

Uneven, at turns both maddening and fascinating. I suppose all in all, a satisfying close to the whole thing.


7 comments so far

  1. ataniell93 on

    Re: ship wars, who cares?

    The reason people care about ship wars isn’t so much the actual pairings at this point; it’s the number of people who are being complete cunts about them. People would find the pairings they don’t like much easier to accept if their websites weren’t being flooded with trolls who are sore winners.

  2. ataniell93 on

    Also re: ship wars, who cares?

    Many people believe that some of the “romance” (and i use the term very loosely in the last two books) was in fact a slap in the face of several groups of fans. If that’s so, it was kind of like shooting fish in a barrel. She IS the author.

    • I have to think that anyone who thought that JKR chose her pairings to annoy a subset of fans has some real perspective issues. Anyway, I was … satisfied. I haven’t decided if I was pleased or not with the book, but I was satisfied.

      • ataniell93 on

        That’s because you’re framing it as “a subset of fans”.

        The thought process some people think she may have been using was, “People think Sirius and Remus are gay? And Tonks is a dyke? Better fix that!”

        FWIW, I tend to agree with this theory because of the comments she’s made on the issue of whether or not there would ever be a gay character in her books, whether or not Sirius and Remus were lovers, &c&c&c. I think she’s got Serious Issues when it comes to homophobia and enforced heteronormativity, which is part of why she wanted to make sure we all knew that everybody paired up and spawned–it’s not even speculation that the crapilogue was pastede on yey, she announced some time in the last year that she’d changed her mind about the Last Word and would be adding one.

        • I more or less expected that things would turn out “normal” in the end, and in a very conventional way. Whether she thinks that way or not, I don’t know, I haven’t seen or read her comments, I don’t care to, and I don’t care to hazard a guess. Whether or not there was a gay character in there was meaningless to me–the absence of a gay character is not the same as being homophobic.

          Maybe she didn’t think she could write one correctly.

          Maybe she is homophobic but didn’t want to inject that into the story.

          Maybe she wanted to but feared the potential outcry over being gay-friendly in a “children’s” book.

          Whatever. It’s not like she only included gays as villains or as weak characters or as targets of derision and abuse.

          Honestly, this analysis and counteranalysis of not only the books but the author are starting to make Talmudic scholarship and Constitutional law look simple and clear by comparison. Whatever happened to reading for the pure enjoyment of reading? Does it matter to me when I read Nineteen Eighty-Four and Animal Farm that George Orwell was ratting out fellow lefties to the government? Not a whit. Do I care when delving into a Holmes story that Arthur Conan Doyle believed in the most unscientific spiritualist balderdash? Not in the slightest. Do I have trouble with the casual racism in some of Edgar Rice Burroughs’ works? Yup, but I also recognize that they are a product of their times. History isn’t always pretty.

          So, I don’t care what she said or what she thinks or what her motives might or might not have been. Just what she wrote. And while she didn’t write anything positive about the LGBT community in her world, she also wrote nothing negative about it. Any mathematician will tell you that while zero is not positive, neither is it negative. It is merely an absence.

          As for the epilogue–you know how often I’ve used the theme of normal lives for abnormal people, so it shouldn’t surprise you that it didn’t bother me.

          • ataniell93 on

            I love you, and this isn’t personal at all, but you just hit several squares on my bingo card.

            The absence of gay characters isn’t the same thing as being homophobic, but if you’re not willing to talk about what the author says herself, no point in continuing this line of discussion.

            • I’m not a big fan of divining authorial intent. If she meant to say something, she would/should have written it that way. If she didn’t write it that way and meant to, chalk it up to cowardice, ignorance, fear, or just being a crummy writer unable to make the point she had in mind. Once the ink hits the paper, anything else she says about it is spin. And the reason I don’t and won’t take what she says into account is because it’s completely irrelevant to whether or not I enjoyed reading the book.

              I would infinitely rather discuss the strengths and merits of DH in itself and relative to the preceding six books. JKR could make Anita Bryant look like Candace Gingrich for all I know, but she didn’t write that way and I’m certainly not scheduled to sit down and have tea with her any time soon that it should make any difference to me.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: