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}
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.