Deathly Hallows

[sistermagpie]

I feel weird writing this post, because I don't really feel like posting, yet it seems like I should, and then I think--what, do you imagine the public is waiting on pins and needles for your words? Get over yourself!:-D

Comments

[alchemia]

i was confused by the christian-ism she said she had and couldn't explain becuase of the book.... I mean, I am assuming Harry = christ figure, esp with the ressurection and all, but uhm, if he was, why'd he go and cast an unforgivable?

I was expecting to think the book was crap, like I thought the last ones were, but that hey, fanfic can fix that. So I went into it expecting very little. I am anxious about what will happen with fanfic (not just because I'm still in the middle of an epic snarry).

The way she handled the WWII issues though offended me (there more in my lj if you are interested). I don't think she was deliberately putting anyone down- but she didn't do her research and came off insensitive- like having Harry Potter fly his broom around a magical version of the WTC to save everyone, or give everyone there potions so when they jump, they won't feel a dang thing (which is a normal fantasy I think for the helpless observers, but there are respectful and tasteless ways to tell such a story. When I've seen a few people write this kind of mary-sued save the day for something like WWII or the WTC attacks, I've seen people respond that tit was tasteless, and I think that's exactly what JKR did- only its buries in a larger series with a ton of hype around. I was able to excuse her diminishing the suffering of witches burned at the stake early in the series when it was aimed at young readers, but not when we get to the 'adult' version of the story- retrospectively and in this book- her attitude to historical suffering just offends me.

[caesia390]

i didn't know the christian thing, but i would guess that it's Jesus's Love = Loving One Another, where "loving one another" means having friends and family you're loyal to even when they piss you off.

not my idea of love.

i'm in the same boat where the things that really drew me into the books were the things that turned out to be significantly awry from what i thought they were - specifically snape's and lupin's (and, less so, harry's) characterizations - which again goes to the idea that "moral" value comes from interpersonal connections with people (snape/lily, lupin/tonks, dubledore/family, harry/friends) rather than a strictly personal sense of integrity and right vs wrong.

She undercut all the ways I thought I identified with the series. Still going off on this tangent... it reminds me of born-again right-wing conservatives who are capable of friendship and love and pity for the people they can personally connect with but who have no sense of the bigger picture - how their actions impact society at large. except that Rowling does overtly acknowledge some of the flaws in her society, but does nothing to indicate that any of the characters really understand *why* it's wrong to judge muggles/slytherins/magical creatures (other than - because that can create trouble for us later on?)

frustrating. >:{

[sistermagpie]

I just read your post--that was really interesting. I didn't think of it that way. Mostly I remember feeling very much that everything had been made WWII because that was basically the situation she wanted them to be in. It was almost like a spell was cast over the world that way. It felt a bit odd after a year of the attitude we had in HBP, and it seemed a little contrived. I didn't feel like I really knew enough to say it couldn't happen that way, but it really just felt like part of the plotline for this particular book, like the politics follow the same kind of timetable as everything else.

[alchemia]

thanks
I did pick up on the wwii stuff earlier as I think several other people did. i just expected it to be kept more general, and I wanted to see more emphasis on house-unity to over come evil (which could be taken easily at face value, or in a general sense of people coming together, or if you wanted to go the WWII parallel rout then they could be how all the countries had to work together etc). Of course Harry is meant to defeat Voldemort- no complaints with that as part of the expected plot, but dropping the ball on the house unity (among so many other things) and having harry save the day in that ministry scene turned it from something i could see read on different levels, to something that felt overly mary-sued, insensitive and offensive to my past.

[sistermagpie]

I understand what you mean. The house unity thing was a blow to me too. It made me a little uncomfortable the way a quarter of the population came across to me.

[alchemia]

It depends from where you were in WWII.

In some place having a quarter or an half of the nation choosing the wrong side - when it was clarly the wrong side, and trating you like dirt, and losing the war too - is just how the things went.

[courtaud]

That was me, sorry

[sistermagpie]

Oh, I'm not denying that fact in WWII. But there I understand the context because it is a specific situation with a historical context. The way you said it is exactly how it came across to me--sometimes there are people who choose the wrong side when it's clearly the wrong side and treat others like dirt because that's just the way things go. It's the "that's just the way things go" that trips me up. There are reasons things go that way, and I'd want to look at those reasons and do something about them.

[spare_change]

I love what you're saying here about WWII and WTC. I thought I was just projecting when I started thinking of WTC during some of the scenes -- you've summed up my reservations with that really well.

[alchemia]

AH!