Random thoughts on DH
Jan. 4th, 2017 12:50 pm![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
star-dragon5.livejournal.com posting in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
deathtocapslockHello, all! Nice to meet you. This is my first post, so please be nice to me.
The following is a list of my major issues with DH:
Albus Dumbledore's backstory. Don't get me wrong, it was awesome and heart-wrenching and thoughtfully provided us with a canon slash couple, but I'm still trying to figure out how it was relevant to the plot. As it is, Dumbledore's backstory serves no other purpose than assuring the reader that yes, Dumbledore has flaws.
Too little, too late, JKR. Permit me to quote Dan Hemmens:
"And it's shit like this that makes me really hate JKR's attempt to make Dumbledore into a "complex" character in this book. You simply can't have it both ways. Either he's a real human person who makes mistakes, or he's the infallible plot god who is so wise, so possessed of absolute foresight, that he manages to predict correctly that Ron will fall under the influence of the Locket Horcrux, leave the quest, want to return, and be unable to do so because Harry and Hermione are travelling the country in a magically protected tent.
Seriously, if the guy is smart enough to do that, why the hell wasn't he smart enough to - say - track down Voldemort's Horcruxes during the ten years in which he was incorporeal, or to twig much sooner that Grindelwald was probably evil, or to not get horribly cursed trying to use the Resurrection Stone (of which more later).
Dumbledore is infallible when he needs to do something amazing to advance the plot, but All Too Human when Rowling wants to impress us with how layered and complex her characters are."
(By the way, if you haven't read Dan's chapter-by-chapter review of DH, you should. It's worth a read. Go ahead, check it out. I'll wait.)
Severus Snape's backstory. Yes, JKR, we know Snape's main flaw is his inability to let go of the past. You didn't need to spend an entire chapter reminding us of that.
More seriously, Snape's backstory is, in a way, Dumbledore's backstory in reverse. Severus was Good All Along, because he loved Lily. I have several problems with this.
First of all, it detracted from Snape's character. You can't have a morally-ambiguous character, spontaneously decide he's been a good guy the whole time, and tack on a reveal at the last minute. You just can't. Either keep him morally ambiguous, or plan to reveal his true allegiance from the start. That way, you can foreshadow the reveal, your character will retain his complexity and credibility, and your readers won't feel cheated.
Second, Severus did not love Lily. He was infatuated and later obsessed with her. Yet we're supposed to believe this is love, the ultimate difference between good and evil in HP-verse. Voldemort is evil because of his inability to understand love. Harry is good because he loves others. You get the picture. As the many people opposed to Twilight and Fifty Shades will tell you, infatuation and obsession are not love. Idealizing someone is not love. Having a crush on your best friend is one thing. Not getting over that crush, even after she stopped being friends with you, even after you left school, even after she married someone else, even after she died, is another. And it's not healthy. It doesn't make Snape look brave or noble, just pathetic. Becoming Dumbledore's spy against Voldemort was certainly brave and noble; I just wish it had been for a less stupid reason.
The third problem has less to do with Snape himself and more to do with Dumbledore. Throughout the books, Dumbledore's main flaw appeared to be, in Harry's words, his "tendency to trust people in spite of overwhelming evidence that they did not deserve it." This was seemingly reinforced at the end of HBP, when Snape killed Dumbledore. Is this true? Maybe it was, when Albus closed his eyes to Gellert's true nature, resulting in Ariana's death and Albus's estrangement from Aberforth. (If Albus was indeed telling Harry the truth about pretending not to know what Gellert was. We only have his word for it, after all. But that's a discussion for another time.) Maybe it was, when Albus allowed Tom to come to Hogwarts. But by the end of DH, it wasn't. Snape was working for Dumbledore all along, so Dumbledore was never wrong about him. I believe this is what Limyaael calls flaw-scrubbing.
If you need any more proof that Albus Dumbledore suffers from Author's Darling syndrome, this is it.
Harry's blind obedience. A lot of people criticize DH!Harry as being passive, and they are right. What bothers me is why. The plot requires Harry to obey Dumbledore's orders without question, so that's what he does. Harry is no longer a protagonist. He is a marionette dancing on the strings of Plot.
Poor Harry.
It would have been wonderful if Harry, instead of remaining "Dumbledore's man through and through," took a third option and found a way to defeat Voldemort on his own terms. He would have ended the series as his own man, rather than Dumbledore's servant. Unfortunately, that's not what happened. But hey, that's what AUs are for, right?
Ron's resentment issues were never fully explored. I felt they should have been. Ron suffers from a massive inferiority complex, and it's not hard to see why. He's not famous like Harry or amazingly intelligent like Hermione (though I tend to place Ron in the Brilliant, but Lazy category), he's obviously his mother's least favorite (not that Mrs. Weasley doesn't love Ron--she does, very much!--but she treats Harry better than she treats him!), and he never gets a chance to shine. Most of the fandom already hates him, and he's frequently treated horribly in fanfic--his author doesn't need to join in. Poor Ron. He deserved better, or at least a closer look at his character.
The titular Deathly Hallows themselves. For all the emphasis placed on love in the previous books, especially in HBP, Harry defeating Voldemort with three magical objects, two of which were never mentioned before, kind of cheapens that, doesn't it?
The action, or lack thereof. On the one hand, we have Harry sitting around in a tent doing nothing. On the other hand, we have Neville leading a rebellion at Hogwarts. Which one sounds more interesting, and which one did we actually get to see?
Yeah. I thought so, too.
The offscreen deaths of Lupin and Tonks. How come Fred and Dobby get to die onscreen, but the last Marauder and his wife don't? It just bugs me.
The anticlimactic Final Showdown between Harry and Voldemort. No further comment needed.
The tone. I loathe OOTP with every fiber of my being, but even that book didn't make me feel depressed just reading it.
In summary? DH is a hot mess. But you didn't need me to tell you that.
*sits back and waits for the flames*
The following is a list of my major issues with DH:
Albus Dumbledore's backstory. Don't get me wrong, it was awesome and heart-wrenching and thoughtfully provided us with a canon slash couple, but I'm still trying to figure out how it was relevant to the plot. As it is, Dumbledore's backstory serves no other purpose than assuring the reader that yes, Dumbledore has flaws.
Too little, too late, JKR. Permit me to quote Dan Hemmens:
"And it's shit like this that makes me really hate JKR's attempt to make Dumbledore into a "complex" character in this book. You simply can't have it both ways. Either he's a real human person who makes mistakes, or he's the infallible plot god who is so wise, so possessed of absolute foresight, that he manages to predict correctly that Ron will fall under the influence of the Locket Horcrux, leave the quest, want to return, and be unable to do so because Harry and Hermione are travelling the country in a magically protected tent.
Seriously, if the guy is smart enough to do that, why the hell wasn't he smart enough to - say - track down Voldemort's Horcruxes during the ten years in which he was incorporeal, or to twig much sooner that Grindelwald was probably evil, or to not get horribly cursed trying to use the Resurrection Stone (of which more later).
Dumbledore is infallible when he needs to do something amazing to advance the plot, but All Too Human when Rowling wants to impress us with how layered and complex her characters are."
(By the way, if you haven't read Dan's chapter-by-chapter review of DH, you should. It's worth a read. Go ahead, check it out. I'll wait.)
Severus Snape's backstory. Yes, JKR, we know Snape's main flaw is his inability to let go of the past. You didn't need to spend an entire chapter reminding us of that.
More seriously, Snape's backstory is, in a way, Dumbledore's backstory in reverse. Severus was Good All Along, because he loved Lily. I have several problems with this.
First of all, it detracted from Snape's character. You can't have a morally-ambiguous character, spontaneously decide he's been a good guy the whole time, and tack on a reveal at the last minute. You just can't. Either keep him morally ambiguous, or plan to reveal his true allegiance from the start. That way, you can foreshadow the reveal, your character will retain his complexity and credibility, and your readers won't feel cheated.
Second, Severus did not love Lily. He was infatuated and later obsessed with her. Yet we're supposed to believe this is love, the ultimate difference between good and evil in HP-verse. Voldemort is evil because of his inability to understand love. Harry is good because he loves others. You get the picture. As the many people opposed to Twilight and Fifty Shades will tell you, infatuation and obsession are not love. Idealizing someone is not love. Having a crush on your best friend is one thing. Not getting over that crush, even after she stopped being friends with you, even after you left school, even after she married someone else, even after she died, is another. And it's not healthy. It doesn't make Snape look brave or noble, just pathetic. Becoming Dumbledore's spy against Voldemort was certainly brave and noble; I just wish it had been for a less stupid reason.
The third problem has less to do with Snape himself and more to do with Dumbledore. Throughout the books, Dumbledore's main flaw appeared to be, in Harry's words, his "tendency to trust people in spite of overwhelming evidence that they did not deserve it." This was seemingly reinforced at the end of HBP, when Snape killed Dumbledore. Is this true? Maybe it was, when Albus closed his eyes to Gellert's true nature, resulting in Ariana's death and Albus's estrangement from Aberforth. (If Albus was indeed telling Harry the truth about pretending not to know what Gellert was. We only have his word for it, after all. But that's a discussion for another time.) Maybe it was, when Albus allowed Tom to come to Hogwarts. But by the end of DH, it wasn't. Snape was working for Dumbledore all along, so Dumbledore was never wrong about him. I believe this is what Limyaael calls flaw-scrubbing.
If you need any more proof that Albus Dumbledore suffers from Author's Darling syndrome, this is it.
Harry's blind obedience. A lot of people criticize DH!Harry as being passive, and they are right. What bothers me is why. The plot requires Harry to obey Dumbledore's orders without question, so that's what he does. Harry is no longer a protagonist. He is a marionette dancing on the strings of Plot.
Poor Harry.
It would have been wonderful if Harry, instead of remaining "Dumbledore's man through and through," took a third option and found a way to defeat Voldemort on his own terms. He would have ended the series as his own man, rather than Dumbledore's servant. Unfortunately, that's not what happened. But hey, that's what AUs are for, right?
Ron's resentment issues were never fully explored. I felt they should have been. Ron suffers from a massive inferiority complex, and it's not hard to see why. He's not famous like Harry or amazingly intelligent like Hermione (though I tend to place Ron in the Brilliant, but Lazy category), he's obviously his mother's least favorite (not that Mrs. Weasley doesn't love Ron--she does, very much!--but she treats Harry better than she treats him!), and he never gets a chance to shine. Most of the fandom already hates him, and he's frequently treated horribly in fanfic--his author doesn't need to join in. Poor Ron. He deserved better, or at least a closer look at his character.
The titular Deathly Hallows themselves. For all the emphasis placed on love in the previous books, especially in HBP, Harry defeating Voldemort with three magical objects, two of which were never mentioned before, kind of cheapens that, doesn't it?
The action, or lack thereof. On the one hand, we have Harry sitting around in a tent doing nothing. On the other hand, we have Neville leading a rebellion at Hogwarts. Which one sounds more interesting, and which one did we actually get to see?
Yeah. I thought so, too.
The offscreen deaths of Lupin and Tonks. How come Fred and Dobby get to die onscreen, but the last Marauder and his wife don't? It just bugs me.
The anticlimactic Final Showdown between Harry and Voldemort. No further comment needed.
The tone. I loathe OOTP with every fiber of my being, but even that book didn't make me feel depressed just reading it.
In summary? DH is a hot mess. But you didn't need me to tell you that.
*sits back and waits for the flames*
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2017-01-04 05:56 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2017-01-04 07:12 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2017-01-05 12:45 am (UTC)Don't get me wrong, it was awesome and heart-wrenching and thoughtfully provided us with a canon slash couple -
Sorry, I have to get you wrong. :-) Dumbledore's homosexuality isn't a canon fact. At least, not in the seven books; I haven't read Cursed Child yet.
In the books Dumbledore's character is certainly *consistent* with being a homosexual - he's never seen in romantic liaison with a woman, he's not married, and so forth, nothing contravening the theory - but there's nothing confirming it either. Rowling's 'outing' him at Carnegie Hall isn't canon.
Dumbledore's infallibility is ludicrous and, in fact, impossible. I'm still confused as to what the ultimate 'plan' was concerning the deus ex machina stick. Was it (a) to let Snape inherit it, or (b) to die 'undefeated'? I think Dumbledore stated both.
Second, Severus did not love Lily. He was infatuated and later obsessed with her.
I agree. I don't particularly think that Snape's unrequited crush is 'pathetic' but I also don't think it was enough to motivate him to endure years of torture as a Riddle minion and so forth.
My main reason for holding that Snape didn't truly 'love' Lily is that he was quite happy to see her husband and child murdered by Riddle; initially it was only *her*, his crush, that he wanted saved. It was only after Dumbledore's prompting that he added James and Harry to the list as an afterthought. I believe one metric of true love is the desire to see your loved one happy even if is to one's own disadvantage. If Snape truly loved Lily then he would have wanted her to be *happy* - i.e. keep her husband and baby boy - even if that wasn't the best outcome for himself.
But Snape's first reaction was to think of himself first.
Rowling seemed intent to keep Harry mired as a normal barely adequate wizard, entirely passive. I think that's sad; but it was her call. Written as he was, though, a lot of the possible drama and 'heroism' was leeched out of the books and his achievements. Consider Harry's instantaneous decision to suicide:
... Harry understood at last that he was not supposed to survive. His job was to walk calmly into Death's welcoming arms.
These are not the thoughts of a 'hero' fighting hard to stay alive or otherwise consciously sacrificing his own life so that others may live. No. It's the automatic Pavlovian response of a brainwashed plot puppet unthinkingly doing his 'job'. Very little heroism to admire in that.
Harry defeating Voldemort with three magical objects, two of which were never mentioned before, kind of cheapens that, doesn't it?
Yes, of course. Rowling's reliance on dei ex machina is legendarily massive. It still amazes me that she got away with it. Give her credit for targeting ignorant children who didn't know any better.
But yes. The Cloak is suddenly promoted to super-duper status because we're suddenly told it went through the washer-dryer a few times without fading. The Stone materialises to be used in one. single. scene. Just so Rowling can shoehorn in her favoured suicide cheer squad moment. And the deus ex machina stick is introduced to get the barely-adequate Harry over the finish line, since he can't do it on his own merits. Destroying six earlier books' "the wand chooses the wizard" mantra along the way.
Pfah!
The anticlimactic Final Showdown between Harry and Voldemort. No further comment needed.
Other than that the movie people thought so also. It's illustrative to note that Rowling's poor canon was shelved more and more as the movies progressed. They certainly didn't want to get anywhere close to that pitiful 'showdown'.
I loathe OOTP with every fiber of my being -
Wait, what?!? It's my favourite! Harry actually does something proactive. Even if it's at the prodding of Hermione (what a gal!!).
no subject
Date: 2017-01-05 01:26 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2017-01-05 01:50 am (UTC)There are *probably* books that are worse than DH :-), but none that have enjoyed its huge commercial success. I need to put across the summary idea that it's simply the world's greatest literary catastrophe in terms of dollars per error, something like that. 'Per verbum' will fit in there somewhere!
no subject
Date: 2017-01-05 01:59 am (UTC)Someone who actually knows Latin might need to correct my grammar. Feel free to do so. I’m a true Ravenclaw, and care more about getting the information right than about being recognized as knowing everything myself.
no subject
Date: 2017-01-05 09:09 pm (UTC)What about per errores?
no subject
Date: 2017-01-05 08:33 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2017-01-05 08:51 am (UTC)Well, DH probably was her first draft. Not kidding. Well, not much. By the last few books Rowling had too much power to be controlled or edited. I remember for a fact - pretty sure - snippets at the time about how the editing was minimal. DH was only seen by four people before it was printed - one head publisher on each side of the pond, only one editor included I think. Big publicity over things like that.
I remember the editor being interviewed and giving as examples of her contribution things like looking for classrooms on the wrong floors, mistakes with which houses shared which classes, things like that. 'Continuity errors'. But absolutely nothing mentioned about *real* editing, like dear Jo, you need to cut out a hundred pages; dear Jo, this entire sub-plot doesn't make sense; dear Jo, you've just got to cut out that ridiculous final showdown, it's strictly amateur hour. Rowling was too powerful. Umpteen times she stated that Harry was 'hers' and none but she shalt write him. And she was the golden goose that could not be denied.
Okay, who wants to organise a ten-year anniversary pillory of DH? :-)
SPaG
Date: 2017-01-07 02:57 pm (UTC)I am constantly having to look up abbreviations when people whose fingers are apparently crippled find it too difficult to write out full words. Acronym finder is a godsend. I have it on my bookmarks.
http://www.acronymfinder.com
Re: SPaG
Date: 2017-01-07 10:30 pm (UTC)It wasn't one of the HP books, so I thought that it might have been a DH chapter but couldn't find that either ...
no subject
Date: 2017-01-05 07:54 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2017-01-05 03:20 pm (UTC)I wouldn't say that that's entirely true. When he comes to Dumbledore, he does refer to all of them:
“You know what I mean! He thinks it means her son, he is going to hunt her down--kill them all--”
He says this before Dumbledore accuses him of only caring about Lily. So, James and Harry were on his mind, even if Lily was the primary reason.
/If Snape truly loved Lily then he would have wanted her to be *happy*/
But he did. By attributing Snape's reformation solely to Lily, JKR invites readers to think that Snape was some kind of obsessed stalker. And yet after Lily breaks off their friendship, we never hear of Snape stalking her, harassing her, or trying to prevent her from dating and then marrying James. So, as far as we know, he did let her be happy, even if it was with someone whom he had every reason to hate.
/The Cloak is suddenly promoted to super-duper status because we're suddenly told it went through the washer-dryer a few times without fading./
I always thought that was strange, because the concept of other Invisibility Cloaks existing was introduced earlier in the series. Barty Crouch Jr. had his own Invisibility Cloak, but now Harry's is suddenly one of the Deathly Hallows? And here I thought that the promotion of the diary - which, unlike the other deliberate Horcruxes, was an ordinary object and one not associated with any of the Founders - to a Horcrux was random and slightly contrived. But at least that one did make some sense.
/And the deus ex machina stick is introduced to get the barely-adequate Harry over the finish line/
It's not even the wand, it's a wand *technicality*. Harry doesn't learn to master the wand or do anything special with it. It's his because he stole it from Draco in a struggle.
no subject
Date: 2017-01-06 12:34 am (UTC)But even so - knowing, admitting, as you say, that all three are to be killed - he comes to Dumbledore initially only asking that *she*, his crush, be saved.
I don't think there's much to your argument. I criticised Snape and demoted his 'love' because he did not initially ask Dumbledore to save the male Potters, even though that would be what Lily would want. My criticism wouldn't make sense if Snape didn't know that the males were to be killed! You've just shown that he *did* know, which means he deliberately didn't ask for them to be saved ... which is my point.
And yet after Lily breaks off their friendship, we never hear of Snape stalking her, harassing her, or trying to prevent her from dating and then marrying James.
True enough. So Snape isn't super selfish, evil, etc. But he also doesn't have a chance to acquire Lily in the first place - she's made her choice, wiped him off.
And when he *does* have that chance - he tries to save/snatch her. Only her.
I always thought that was strange, because the concept of other Invisibility Cloaks existing was introduced earlier in the series. Barty Crouch Jr. had his own Invisibility Cloak -
Yes. And Moody had *two*! In GoF, I think, he mentions how he gave his spare to Mundungus.
It truly disgusts me how Rowling just waved her hands and did *whatever she wanted* - in desperation, in laziness - to get DH written and out the door. And there was no real criticism or penalty. She got away with it, with that load of garbage.
Harry doesn't learn to master the wand or do anything special with it. It's his because he stole it from Draco in a struggle.
Yeah. Rowling seemed *really really determined* to keep Harry mired down as a barely competent young wizard. She really didn't want him to win by any cleverness or ability of his own. And so the entire series that held a generation spellbound is resolved in its climax with some lawyer talk about wand lore small print that no-one knew existed.
It still amazes me that she got away with it.
no subject
Date: 2017-01-19 08:57 am (UTC)we have Snape who risks his life (twice! ...)
True.
Since this young family are prime members of a Secret Order, by warning the Head of that Order, it GOES WITHOUT SAYING that the warning is for all three.
You'd think so - I agree - and yet Snape doesn't seem to have thought that far, as per my next -
...saying, "you have to save them!"
'Them', mind you.
No no no. :-)
He does NOT say 'them'. It's crystal clear that his first, only, thought is to save Lily. When Dumbledore assumes-out-loud that he only asked for Lily to be saved Snape doesn't say what anyone would have said - had that NOT been true - "wait, what, I didn't --".
When Dumbledore asks him straight out "you do not care, then about the deaths of husband and child" Snape doesn't say what anyone would say - had that NOT been true - "no, I do care, I did ask".
Instead he 'says nothing'.
And then says "Hide them all, then".
'Then' being a key word. 'Hide them all', then, if you want to do something other than my original intent, saving just Lily.
And then his next utterance has a further damning slip - "Keep her - them - safe". Keep her, whups, okay, he wants to do something else, save *them*.
Sorry, I think it's pretty clear that Snape originally intended to rescue only Lily. And that was who all he'd asked Riddle to spare.
But I appreciate your earlier point that Snape risked his life. But it wasn't for bona fide 'true love'. His desire for Lily fell short of that.
By pretending I wanted Lily for my own, I got the Dark Lord to actually promise me that he would spare her!
Is it actually canon that that's the case? Maybe you have a good point here. Lily's death scene is in DH and Riddle seems to want to spare Lily, which is consistent with Snape having succeeded in his request for the Dark Lord to spare her - "Stand aside, you silly girl ... stand aside now ... this is my last warning ...".
But then:
He could have forced her away from the crib, but it seemed more prudent to finish them all ...
I think that sentence shows that Riddle had NOT agreed to Snapes request to save Lily - just Lily - and hence why Snape had sought Dumbledore. To, initially, just save Lily.
If that was ALL I wanted, I wouldn't be here to warn YOU.
But that's not true. If that was ALL he wanted, AND if Riddle had agreed, then Snape wouldn't have met with Dumbledore.
But Riddle refused. It "wasn't prudent". He showed reluctance at first to kill the woman, but then, rather than 'force her away' - easy enough a task for a dark lord facing a defenceless wandless woman - he killed her.
So Snape asked - was refused - and then went to Dumbledore. All to save Lily. Her men were an afterthought, prompted by Dumbledore's 'disgust'.
... So I've warned you. Get off your sanctimonious arse and DO YOUR JOB!
Alas, such crystal-clear dialogue is not in the books. :-(
Don't take Dumbledore's word for ANYTHING.
As I've mentioned above, I take Snape's words as proof that he originally was only concerned with saving Lily.
We SEE a young man who throws away everything he has and will ever have, including his life, om order to save the lives off his worst tormenter, a foolish girl and her baby, and instead of calling him noble for doing so, some will insist that he is a selfish creeper who wants two of those HE IS ACTIVELY SAVING to be killed!
What I see is a young man who risks his life (good point, again) to save the life of the girl with whom he is infatuated. I don't think that makes him a 'selfish creeper'. But I also believe that his - initially - only wanting to have Lily saved means he was a couple of rungs short of 'true love' too.
Somewhere in the middle maybe. I'll go along with it being more than simple lust; they'd been childhood friends. But whatever it was - pointed out by someone else - wasn't enough for Snape to keep trying to 'win' Lily after the 'mudblood' incident or when James caught her eye.
no subject
Date: 2017-01-19 09:05 am (UTC)Snape looks confused. "But.. but Lily loves him, and she loves her baby.. I just want her to be happy, and to live!"
Yes. That's exactly what I would have liked - would have wanted - to see, as proof that Snape was the noble (background) hero whose love for Lily was the 'real thing', top of the list, nothing greater.
Or, failing that - in the absence of Dumbldore's out-of-character humility and the melodrama of your passage :-) - at least something that showed that Snape turned up wanting to save all three Potters from the start.
But - sadly - there wasn't any such sign. Instead, dialogue from Snape that showed that he was, initially, interested only in Lily.
Because if you don't, it's not Snape's ACTIONS that make you believe those things, but rather Dumbledore's WORDS.
No, it is SNAPE'S words. As per my previous comment.
Still, in the end, we shouldn't forget that the record shows that Snape agreed - having risked his life, etc - to save all three.
And then Lily's death was enough to keep him going for 18 more years.
(Which is a bit unbelievable for me; but it's canon.)
I hope you had fun in Amsterdam!
no subject
Date: 2017-01-05 03:01 pm (UTC)The problem is that that backstory doesn't address the flaws that have been present in Dumbledore throughout the series. Giving Gryffindor the House Cup at the last minute in PS/SS? Not telling anyone at Hogwarts about Tom Riddle? Lying to Harry about the reason why Snape hated James? Not doing anything about the Dursleys until HBP? If you start to look at Dumbledore as a three-dimensional character, instead of a mentor archetype or a plot device, then a lot of his actions begin to fall apart once examined closely. There's a reason why there was that Cracked article about Dumbledore being a terrible headmaster.
/it detracted from Snape's character/
Especially since JKR decided that it was the *only* reason. There have been so many fanfics that explored possible reasons as to why Snape left the Death Eaters and that's the one that JKR settles on? It was all because Voldemort was going to kill a fickle hypocrite who treated Snape like dirt? Not because Snape grew disillusioned with the Death Eaters or horrified at the levels to which they had sunk? Not because Dumbledore offered him a better option? No, it was all because of a crush. Because heaven forbid that Snape be a moral person on his own.
/Dumbledore was never wrong about him/
My problem is the way that Snape sided with Dumbledore. All through the books, Harry was wondering why Dumbledore trusted Snape so much, why he was so certain that Snape was no longer a Death Eater. Again, fanfic authors speculated as to why this was so, offering reasons such as Dumbledore saving Snape's life, working with him, etc.
But now? Oh, you know why Dumbledore trusts Snape so much? Because he bullied him into submission, gave him a guilt trip about being a Death Eater, and holds Lily's death over his head. Yeah, it's not a bond of friendship or quasi-filial loyalty or anything like that. It's guilt. How underwhelming.
/Ron's resentment issues were never fully explored/
JKR just kept hitting the reset button when it came to Ron. He was good at chess and knowledgeable about wizarding society in PS/SS, and neither of those things came up again. He walked away from Harry in GOF, and he walked away from him again in DH. He was insecure about Quidditch in OotP, won the game, and was back to being insecure about Quidditch in HBP. He and Hermione had that long, tiresome soap opera in HBP, and in DH, he's *still* insecure about their relationship and she's *still* threatening him with birds!
He was just never allowed to resolve any of his issues. His attitude towards the house elves in DH is treated like this big epiphany, but it's not, it's just a continuation of the attitude that he already had in OotP. His insecurities about his brothers never come to fruition, because what happens in the end? He replaces Fred. He doesn't become an individual to be admired in his own right. His mother is never called out for her treatment of him. And in that awful play (which I am quite happy to count as non-canon), he's still the butt of jokes.
/Harry defeating Voldemort with three magical objects, two of which were never mentioned before, kind of cheapens that/
Especially since the Elder Wand has nothing to do with love. If you don't view the Resurrection Stone as a trap, you could say that it was the love from his parents and friends that pushed Harry on. The Cloak used to belong to his father, so I suppose you could kind of make an argument there. But the Elder Wand? No. Wand allegiance has nothing to do with love. Yet that's what killed Voldemort in the end.
/The offscreen deaths of Lupin and Tonks/
You get the feeling that JKR just wanted Lupin out of the way? I know that now she says that she regrets killing him, but the way that she abruptly matched him up with Tonks, made him a father, and then killed him off, just feels like she was rushing his character and wanted to get his death over with.
/I loathe OOTP with every fiber of my being, but even that book didn't make me feel depressed just reading it/
I loathe OOTP *because* it made me depressed just reading it. I hated almost everyone in that book and just found it a miserable slog.
no subject
Date: 2017-01-12 01:12 am (UTC)It would have been nice to see some one change sides for that reason.
Instead we get Snape loved Lily.
Regulus upset that Voldy was mean to his house elf.
Even DD only breaks with Grindelwald because his sister was killed.
no subject
Date: 2017-01-12 10:34 am (UTC)OMG, this. DH is a drag and some of the ethics of that one in particular (HBP is bad for that, with the endless Big Man on Campus Harry and his equally obnoxious soulmate, but at least that has some Slytherins with a pretence of depth, before the author intervenes) are just...bleak, but OotP has that in spades, too, and is just relentlessly hateful. Subtlety was never JKR's strong point, but it just feels like this one is the worst, maybe because of the long break it took to appear; for just forcing a point.
(And it has Grawp.)
no subject
Date: 2017-01-05 03:55 pm (UTC)I agree with most of your points, with the exception, perhaps, of Snape's motivations. I'd say being prepared to do, literally, anything, to save another person from the consequences of one's own screw-up involving certain death is pretty damned noble in any case, however imperfect (from the point of view of Kantian, disinterested morality) his love for her might have been. He could not at that point hope to keep Lily for himself, but he could care, very deeply, that she live (asking him to care that James Potter live... well, I am afraid that would be asking to demonstrate the degree of moral perfection he probably had had no chance to acquire; I am not entirely certain that in his situation I would have felt any differently). In fact, his 'obsession' with Lily was probably what inadvertently saved Harry; a better adjusted person would have long moved on, saying 'Ah well, can't be helped'. The point was, he loved Lily more than he felt loyal to Voldemort; than he feared Dumbledore; than he cared about himself. And whatever his shortcomings (Lily, let's be honest, wasn't all that, either), that was enough.
Also, I never felt that JKR succeeded in making him a morally-ambiguous character. He wasn't really, until his ostensible betrayal in HBP. What she succeeded in showing was a thoroughly unpleasant piece of work who at the same time never did any real harm (excluding the harm to some students' self-esteem, but that, compared to everything he could have done, is small beer). That would only work for those who equate 'not nice' with 'bad'. So if that was her intention, it was a fail.
As for Harry the Puppet, fair point. Although, considering how well his one attempt at independent thinking and action went (that saving Sirius mission), maybe it's for the best. I think what JKR was trying to do there is convey a spiritual truth which is way too big for the book (turning the series into one big parable and Harry into a Christlike figure) and, frankly, for her abilities. Even so, it would have worked much better if Harry had until that moment showed some skill and spirit - that would have been something he could genuinely give up. Otherwise, it is no sacrifice - Voldemort would make mincemeat out of him whether or not he chose to fight.
Harry's Lack of Skill
Date: 2017-01-06 12:05 pm (UTC)If there had been ANY chance or even slight suggestion that Harry might have actually been able to defeat Voldy then the walk to his death would have shown as a true turn-the-other-cheek sacrifice. That at least would have played better with the 'Christ-like' symbolism. Instead I was appalled (as a christian) that she was equating a crucio-casting Harry with Jesus.
I was discussing this with a fanfic writer I admire. (I'll credit this later after asking them if it is okay) I had suggested that I felt JKR was trying to present Harry as an 'everyman' - beginning way back with the 'just Harry' line in bk1 and that I thought that was the reason she set it all up for him to seem so average.
The writer argued that they could never see it that way because he had all these extra 'gifts' supplied to him (or inherited by him) that really DID signal that he wasn't the 'common man' - the cloak, the Map, the brother wand, his mother's 'love' in his very skin, the other Hallows, special treatment. I kept saying 'but those weren't HIM'. It wasn't until I was reminded by the writer that Harry could cast a corporal patronus at what was considered to be a surprisingly young age by the rest of the wizarding world, that I began to agree - slightly.
I've come to see this as another fault in the books. I think JKR really WANTED him to be BOTH 'special' AND an 'everyman', but she couldn't pull it off. It is also I think the reason I have such a problem with the walk to death. Since she didn't go full-on 'special enough that he could have a chance at saving himself' and wanted him to still come off as average flawed teen ('everyman') I found it not only insulting to my faith to make him seem to be a christ-figure, but also appalling to make him into an every-teen because it then struck too much as suicide - not sacrifice.
I had had such hope in the earlier books that Harry as everyman would win out as I felt it would emphasize the need for everyone to reach into themselves and find the wherewithal to stand up and 'do the right thing' - with the 'right thing' NOT being suicide.
Instead, the only 'save' I could extract from the 'walk', was to think of it as Harry walking-a-mile in Snape's shoes. And that had been my first reaction - until the JamesLilySiriusRemus death-cheerleaders appeared without JKR allowing Harry any time for reflection that Snape has to go to Voldy repeatedly with the chance he might die each time. Or even Snape's walk into the blinding light on the hillside to meet Albus when he was so desperate to not be killed until he had at leat gotten the message across about Voldy targeting the Potters.
She didn't even have Harry think of anyone at the castle that he didn't care about - which I saw as a link to Snape only apparently worrying about Lily.
Re: Harry's Lack of Skill
Date: 2017-01-06 01:30 pm (UTC)As I mentioned here earlier I believe this also. Rowling was absolutely determined to keep Harry mired as a barely adequate wizard.
It wasn't until I was reminded by the writer that Harry could cast a corporal patronus at what was considered to be a surprisingly young age by the rest of the wizarding world, that I began to agree - slightly.
That always comes up when I talk about Harry's magical abilities being only average. A lot of people don't understand why Harry was able to cast that Patronus in PoA and still be only a normal boy wizard.
The Patronus Charm is very much a 'will powered' spell. You've got to have your 'happy thought' firmly in place, no doubts, no mental quavering, etc. Harry had always been poor at casting it until the night of the full moon. He was able to cast a good strong Patronus then because he had already seen himself succeed! He knew that he could - that he would - cast it properly. And so he did.
It was a one-off event.
As further proof, consider his failure to defend himself from dementors at the Hogwarts battle at the end of DH. The Trio are accosted by dementors and have to be rescued by Luna and two others (Ernie?). If Harry was the 'talented wizard' that some fans would love him to be then he would have been able to repeat his earlier spectacular dementor success. But he didn't.
(He casts a Patronus at other times - start of OotP, when invading the ministry in DH - but there's nothing much there that lifts him out of that 'everyman' slot. In PoA we're told that a lot of adults can't cast the spell - I think that's the phrasing - but by DH the entire DA can do it, the OotP can do it, etc. Nothing 'special' in Harry being able to do it. When the circumstances aren't demanding extra-powerful magical abilities that he doesn't have.)
I think JKR really WANTED him to be BOTH 'special' AND an 'everyman', but she couldn't pull it off.
I don't think Rowling has a problem at all with someone being 'special' and winning because of gifts and efforts bequeathed him by others. I think that was exactly what she was going for - a totally normal boy who wanted nothing but a 'normal' life - the end goal of this 'hero' - but who won due to luck, coincidence and the agency of others. Which makes for a very poor story ... but that's what Rowling apparently wanted to write.
I think she did 'pull it off' to an extent that satisfied her. But she wanted to achieve that goal in the first place and didn't see it for the superficial and artificial storyline that it was. Part of the authorial tunnel vision which contributed to the poor structure of the series.
Re: Harry's Lack of Skill
Date: 2017-01-07 01:12 pm (UTC)Truthfully, my bet that Snape's alternative mode of dealing with dementors (with which Harry disagreed) was to run until their influence lessened and THEN cast the patronus.
Anyways, I've long felt the DA could cast them so easily simply because there were no dementors there to affect their emotions. I'm sure Snape was appalled that the kids all thought they COULD fight a dementor without ever having known how much more difficult it would be to cast if it was nearby.
I think that was also why Lupin's patronus was so incorporeal on the train in bk3. He was too close to the dementor in that small train carriage.
Re: Harry's Lack of Skill
Date: 2017-01-07 01:33 pm (UTC)I don't think that's supported by the canon:
.. the dementors fell back before the creatures' approach. Three more people had arrived out of the darkness to stand beside them, their wands outstretched, continuing to cast Patronuses: Luna, Ernie, and Seamus.
Luna, Ernie and Seamus are "standing beside" the Trio.
Re: Harry's Lack of Skill
Date: 2017-01-10 03:28 am (UTC)They step "...out of the darkness to stand beside them, their wands outstretched, continuing to cast..."
In other words, they are outside the circle when they start. And once they begin, they are affecting the dementors and so lessening their 'sphere' of influence.
Re: Harry's Lack of Skill
Date: 2017-01-10 03:51 am (UTC)The Trio was further away from the dementors, too, when they first came across them:
.. Shapes moved out in the darkness, swirling figures of concentrated blackness, moving in a great wave towards the castle, their faces hooded and their breath rattling ...
...
A hundred dementors were advancing, gliding toward them, sucking their way closer to Harry's despair ...
So I don't think there's conclusive evidence either way. The dementors were certainly further away from Harry at the start, just as Luna's crew were.
All I know is that Harry never ever repeated his 'repelling 100+ dementors' trick. The explanation that he achieved this only under special circumstances is very much the simpler one than explaining away every other time he could have performed prodigious magic. Because the 'special circumstances' are clearly outlined in PoA. And, when he is again faced by a crowd of dementors, minus the time travelling confidence ... he fails dismally.
Re: Harry's Lack of Skill
Date: 2017-01-11 10:26 am (UTC)He must be relatively far away to mistake his under-14 yr old self for what he thinks is a thirty-something man.
Re: Harry's Lack of Skill
Date: 2017-01-12 01:47 am (UTC)And there were the dementors. They were emerging out of the darkness from every direction, gliding around the edges of the lake.... They were moving away from where Harry stood, to the opposite bank.... He wouldn't have to get near them....
We started this thread talking about Harry's lack of 'magical power' in the series. You said that you were urged to believe that he was more than an 'everyman' because of his repelling the dementors in PoA:
It wasn't until I was reminded by the writer that Harry could cast a corporal patronus at what was considered to be a surprisingly young age by the rest of the wizarding world, that I began to agree - slightly.
But now you're agreeing that Harry's casting a Patronus was no more exceptional than any other DA member:
Regarding how all the rest of the DA could cast a patronus and the 'save' during the Battle - I've always explained it as being outside the dementors' 'sphere of influence'.
Just like Harry was outside that 'sphere of influence' in PoA.
If anyone were to still think that Harry's casting the Patronus at the end of PoA was a sign of exceptional magical ability I would simply point at the extraordinary circumstances, his *knowing* he would succeed, as I've mentioned before. And then point out that he was never able to repeat his success, bereft of that special advantage.
RE: Harry's Lack of Skill
Date: 2017-01-06 04:24 pm (UTC)Quite. Jesus might have been a bit rude to the moneylenders, but this is not in the same league as torture.
I agree that Harry turned out to be a bad mash-up of the 'everyman' and 'special'. And what a version of 'specialness' it is - effectively, the more cool gadgets you have, the more special you are. Nice message for the next generation. :) It could have been done in the way of an essentially average kid having to come to terms with a unique burden (mission, etc.). But in this case, the story should demonstrate some growth, the way in which the kid becomes equal to this burden. Otherwise it is improbable. Some months ago a friend and I and some others had a conversation where I said that I just don't believe that Harry as he was shown was even capable of the kind of goodness that would enable him to make this sort of sacrifice. He was not just average in skill or capacity, he was more than average ethically, and it was never demonstrated that his 'unlimited capacity for love' or some such rot was not just Dumbledore's spin. I just don't believe that a kid who threw a hissy fit over his friend's daring to care about his safety (PoA Firebolt incident with Hermione) or nearly killed another kid and only sulked because he could not play Quidditch or snog Ginny would be capable of selflessly laying down his life for the wizardkind. Even by teenager standards he is a bit lacking in empathy. As with Snape, I don't think that the character should always be morally perfect, but he is not even shown to be struggling and learning from it.
to think of it as Harry walking-a-mile in Snape's shoes
Wouldn't that be fitting? There is a clear parallel between him seeing 'The Prince's Tale' in DH and snooping on 'Snape's Worst Memory' in OOTP. In neither case does he actually empathise with Snape as a human being. And while in DH he admittedly had a lot to digest, in OOTP it was all about poor Harry feeling uncomfortable over his idols turning out to be nasty little shits (and incredibly easily reassured by the same).
Re: Harry's Lack of Skill
Date: 2017-01-19 02:45 pm (UTC)Yes, I think that's a good point. Love is what Voldemort is supposed to not understand, love is what is supposed to save the day, and yet...Harry isn't extremely loving or compassionate. He's friends with Luna and Neville, who are both social outcasts in their own ways, but he doesn't go out of his way to help bullied students. He does bury Dobby with his own hands, but it's Hermione who comes up with SPEW. Hermione is the one who sees something wrong with the enslavement of house elves and tries to change it. Yes, she goes about it the wrong way, but at least she *tries.* At least she makes an effort to stand up for those whom she perceives as oppressed.
I get that Harry was supposed to be an average kid, but the problem is that his main adversary is not an average person. Voldemort is supposed to be the powerful embodiment of evil, so you'd think that Harry would be a match for him in morals, if not in power. There have been fanfics where Harry is set up as the compassionate opposite of Voldemort, where he tries to reach out to him, but that never happens in canon.
/I just don't believe that a kid who threw a hissy fit over his friend's daring to care about his safety (PoA Firebolt incident with Hermione) or nearly killed another kid and only sulked because he could not play Quidditch or snog Ginny would be capable of selflessly laying down his life for the wizardkind. Even by teenager standards he is a bit lacking in empathy/
And there's another problem with Harry's great capacity for love saving the day: where does he ever do that for any of his minor antagonists? Does he ever apologize to Draco for nearly killing him in the bathroom? Does he ever apologize to Snape for misjudging him in PS/SS?
In Brandon Sanderson's YA book, "The Rithmatist", the protagonist also butts heads with his nasty and unpleasant teacher. Like Harry, he also believes that his teacher is responsible for the evil plot that goes on at school. But once he learns that he is wrong, what does he do?
Even though he still doesn't like his teacher, he goes after him and *apologizes.* He says, "I was wrong. I'm sorry." And he goes on to say, "I don't want to fight, Professor. In the end, we were working toward the same goal. If we'd helped one another, then perhaps we could have accomplished more."
Now, the book doesn't end there as there's another twist (which some may feel ruins this scene), but the point remains. When does Harry ever say something like that to Snape? He never interacts with Snape as anything other than an enemy. Dumbledore explained it all, so there's no need for an actual scene where Harry and Snape meet and discuss what happened. Just like how in HBP, all that Draco gets after the Sectumsempra scene is a dismissive line from Ron, "Oh, he was in class the next day, he's fine."
RE: Re: Harry's Lack of Skill
Date: 2017-01-20 02:33 pm (UTC)Indeed. Or if not apologising (if he is too chicken to apologise to Snape :)), then at least admitting to himself that he wronged them.
It was actually funny to read the showdown scene where Harry lectured Voldemort about remorse. I was thinking: 'Pot, kettle... When was it that you, dear boy, actually experienced remorse? Like for the death of Sirius which was entirely avoidable and entirely your fault - you as good as led him to it?' Instead, Harry jumps at the chance to scapegoat an entirely innocent Snape and to rail at D-dore (who, admittedly, had it coming)? Or for the attempted murder of Draco? Or for getting Hermione tortured through his own stupidity? Or even about Snape on the numerous occasions when he misjudged him and/or wronged him? Not in the sense of 'Oh woe is me, all these people are dying because of me-me-me' that we are shown in the book, but in the sense of really feeling personal responsibility for the wrongs caused to specific people by his own - specific - actions.
So when he is mouthing off to Voldie about something he clearly has no idea about, he just comes across as a self-righteous little prick. It is true that Voldie has much more to repent for, but Harry is supposed to be good - if only as an ordinary good person who sometimes screws up, let alone as a paragon of love.
I am not sure what to take this as: either that JKR is such a mediocre writer that she was unable to express exactly how Harry is 'good and loving', or that there is something fundamentally wrong with her own moral compass and she doesn't see any problem with his portrayal.
Harry isn't extremely loving or compassionate.
This 'love' thing is rather funny. I find myself in a minority (possibly, of one) in thinking there is nothing particularly wrong in Snape's love for Lily. In fact, I think, really loving even one human being is superior to abstractly 'caring' about all of humanity. Dumbledore needed to get off his high horse, and with his own love history, he had no right to be 'disgusted' by Snape. (Self-righteous prick no. 2 detected!). This does not preclude consideration for others, but the fact is - others may not be the focus of our attention. We are all flawed in this regard. With Harry though? I can't work out who is it that he actually loves? With Snape's single-minded love, or with Christ-like, universal love, or at least with Regulus's love for Kreacher? He likes people who are nice (not necessarily good) to him, as we all do. He likes Ginny because she is pretty and he is a teenage boy. He likes his friends but I always wonder if he doesn't like treacle tart and his broom more. In a word, he is a rather tepid boy, isn't he?
I get that Harry was supposed to be an average kid, but the problem is that his main adversary is not an average person. Voldemort is supposed to be the powerful embodiment of evil, so you'd think that Harry would be a match for him in morals, if not in power.
This is very well said. And, I feel, another missed opportunity to create an interesting character with believable motivations to become the way he was (instead of, ffs, 'Oh he was just born evil'). So instead we have a showdown between a flat hero and a cartoon villain.
no subject
Date: 2017-01-09 12:56 am (UTC)Harry's passivity is a totally plausible reaction to his upbringing with the Dursleys, where basically nothing he does will change his situation. So why bother? Then suddenly finding out he's magic and has inherited a bunch of money and some neat stuff is equally arbitrary, and it's not like Hogwarts encourages proactive behavior in students. And of course, Dumbledore has a vested interest in keeping Harry pliable. So Rowling could have built this up deliberately as a problem for Harry to struggle with. Tension! Drama! Instead she just... made it not an issue, or possibly even tried to cast it as a virtue on occasion. Disappointing.
The whole Snape/Lily thing also could have worked much better with very little tweaking. We know that the ideas the DEs espoused publicly were probably not that far off from the "mainstream" views of the wizarding world until late in the war (Muggles are stupid cattle and it's okay to wipe their memories when convenient, like for major sporting events, e.g.). Whatever the baby DEs in school did probably was no worse than or at least not much worse than everything the Marauders got up to. It would be easy for little Sev to convince himself that they weren't that bad, not really. And they accepted him, which is more than he could say for anyone on Team Dumbledore. If his duties as DE involved mainly potioneering or fighting people who'd tormented him in school, it would again be easy to fool himself about the whole movement. Lily being targeted would be the shock that made him realize no, that nagging feeling he's been suppressing is right and this DE thing actually is really terrible. And Lily's death would be the trauma of just how badly he'd screwed up. Devoting his life to fighting Voldemort would be not just about a crush, but about trying to atone for his crimes. And of course, Dumbledore is always there to remind him just how guilty he should feel and keep him from moving on; can't forget that. Again, this is more interesting than just "wuv!" She could even have delved a bit more into exactly what Snape felt at the time--was he tempted to say, well, Lily knew the risks when she chose her side, and anyway, she married that monster James and deserves what she gets? And then decided that no, he would rather she live even if he did feel she'd betrayed him? (I read the conversation as him assuming that Dumbledore would know saving Lily would mean saving James and the baby because they're a package deal, obviously, but ugh, it just hurts to have to actually say he wants James saved too.)
Dumbledore's issues were neatly laid out right in the text, and JKR just wussed out on taking them to their logical conclusion. She can't have him be both terribly flawed (to say the least) and have his plan work perfectly and keep him as the voice of wisdom at the same time.
And so forth. The pieces were all there; if she'd just tweaked the details, it might have worked!
no subject
Date: 2017-01-12 01:20 am (UTC)