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: 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.