OoP - It's all about the twists

[jstuart57]

No: HPFGUIDX 70776

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "darrin_burnett" wrote:
> I'm a simple guy. 
> 
> My favorite part about reading these books for the first time is 
the twists, the 
> feeling that I might pick up some of the clues, but not all of 
them, and might not 
> hit the right conclusion.

JoAnn
Snipping most of the post. Darrin did a nice summary of a general 
recreational reader experience vis-à-vis the first four books. It was 
post #70647 and I pretty much have to say "yeah, me, too!" to what he 
wrote.  But there's more...
 
Darrin:
> Simply put, from a simple guy who still reads these things for 
recreation above 
> all, it didn't twist enough.

JoAnn:
Not only did it not twist enough, my main grumble about this book was 
the overabundance of what may or may not be clues.  There are so many 
details and sub-plots and new characters popping in and out that it's 
difficult to reasonably guess when it's something that may turn up 
again as being important or if JKR was simply in need of a more 
severe editor.

The book is cluttered.  It seems to lack focus.  It's like standing 
too close to a tapestry.  I now wonder if, when my mind wandered a 
couple of times while reading (like during the detailed explanations 
of cleaning Grimmaud Place, all the floors in the MoM, all the floors 
in St. Mungos, etc.), if I missed An Important Clue because I was 
wanting to get on with the plot already.  I suppose this means I'm 
simple, too.

On the other hand, I was fascinated with the hummingbird/egg thingy 
that was in the crystal bell jar.  I wanted to stay and watch that 
with Ginny as well.  Could this be an important foreshadowing the 
cyclical nature of events or is it merely an interesting curiosity?  
Ah, well, my 7th grade science teacher used to say, "simple things 
amuse children."

Darrin:
> I'll read it many times, and I'm sure I'll enjoy it more with 
retellings, as I pick up 
> more details and debate them. On that level, it will be better than 
PS and CoS 
> for me, simply because it's bigger.

JoAnn:
Well, there are certainly more details to discuss! :)

Darrin:
> But not PoA. PoA remains my favorite.
> 
> But for that first time? Nope, can't compare to the other four.

JoAnn:
Same reaction here.  I love getting tricked by a clever author, but 
alas, not this time.  I, too, knew that the vision was false. I'm not 
sure why I knew; maybe it was Dumbledore's (and Black's, too, if I 
remember correctly) ambiguous hint to Harry that he had to learn 
Occlumency and that he'd understand why later on.  (Why on earth does 
no one ever give that boy enough information to make a reasonable 
decision?  But that's a rant for another day.  Besides, it would have 
shortened the book considerably had someone suggested that Voldemort 
might be able to trick Harry like that.)  Even the Thestrals seemed 
rather convenient and not very surprising.

This book has a different feel to it.  In some ways, OotP is a lot 
deeper than the first four.  It's not as plot driven, perhaps?  We're 
getting more into issues of politics and power, of life and death. 
It's darker, more complex, which, I suppose, is as it should be, 
since it's a bildungsroman.

Be that as it may, I did very much enjoy the book.  I'll probably 
enjoy rereading it, maybe even more so than the first read, because 
now that I know the plot and I might be able to step back a pace from 
the tapestry to see what patterns the threads reveal.

JoAnn