I was surprised to see so much of the negative reaction, which I have started looking at now that I penned my own reaction, which I wanted to do first before I started thinking, "Yeah, wow, you are right, that DID kinda suck." I think one of the big differences was that I went into the book thinking I was going to enjoy it, not thinking 'well, JKR, you'd better damn well impress me!' I was an easy audience. :)
Frankly the complaints about Snape's death (and there are a lot of them) make me roll my eyes. In war, and in life, people die who don't deserve to. They die in sucky ways. They die in sucky ways after having lived a sucky life and never got their good karma coming back at them. Not everyone can go down in a blaze of glory, and I don't think the way Snape went down was a disservice to his character. It was just the reality of war. Sad, tragic, and unfair, yes, but maybe all the more poignant because of it.
I agree with your ideas of why, maybe, parts of the book didn't work. I did feel as though it was quite a bit of "and then this happened! and this happened! and then they went here where this happened!" I also agree with the fact that it was much easier to find the Horcruxes than I imagined it would be, considering at the beginning of the book they had no clue what they were or where they might be. I mean, considering all the work Voldemort put into guarding some of the other Horcruxes, such as the locket, he just tossed the diadem into some room at Hogwarts he assumed no one else had or ever would find?
See, maybe there is significance to the fact that Harry didn't kill Voldemort, because that's what got me--if Voldemort was tethering Harry to life, shouldn't Harry, um, drop dead after Voldemort did the same?
I jump into a raging river, bound to land by a rope hooked to a tree. Using the rope, I pull myself out of the river and back to land. I unhook the rope.
This doesn't mean I'm going to drown now, does it?
Hmm, yeah, that makes sense. I guess I saw it more as 'you jump into a raging river, and grab onto a friend's leg who is clinging to a rope hooked to a tree. The friend lets go. you both drown.' However, your version makes a lot more sense based on the book, haha. :)
I was surprised to see so much of the negative reaction, which I have started looking at now that I penned my own reaction, which I wanted to do first before I started thinking, "Yeah, wow, you are right, that DID kinda suck." I think one of the big differences was that I went into the book thinking I was going to enjoy it, not thinking 'well, JKR, you'd better damn well impress me!' I was an easy audience. :)
Frankly the complaints about Snape's death (and there are a lot of them) make me roll my eyes. In war, and in life, people die who don't deserve to. They die in sucky ways. They die in sucky ways after having lived a sucky life and never got their good karma coming back at them. Not everyone can go down in a blaze of glory, and I don't think the way Snape went down was a disservice to his character. It was just the reality of war. Sad, tragic, and unfair, yes, but maybe all the more poignant because of it.
I agree with your ideas of why, maybe, parts of the book didn't work. I did feel as though it was quite a bit of "and then this happened! and this happened! and then they went here where this happened!" I also agree with the fact that it was much easier to find the Horcruxes than I imagined it would be, considering at the beginning of the book they had no clue what they were or where they might be. I mean, considering all the work Voldemort put into guarding some of the other Horcruxes, such as the locket, he just tossed the diadem into some room at Hogwarts he assumed no one else had or ever would find?
See, maybe there is significance to the fact that Harry didn't kill Voldemort, because that's what got me--if Voldemort was tethering Harry to life, shouldn't Harry, um, drop dead after Voldemort did the same?
Reply
This doesn't mean I'm going to drown now, does it?
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment