Ginny VS Harry / Re: HBP Review in Globe and Mail

[delwynmarch]

No: HPFGUIDX 135609

Julie wrote:
"According to JKR's interview with Mugglenet/TLC, she is writing
according to a genre."

Del replies:
Agreed, but according to the same interview she also incorporates what
she feels needs to be there:

"MA: How much fun did you have with the romance in this book?

JKR: Oh, loads. Doesn't it show?

MA: Yes.

JKR: There's a theory - this applies to detective novels, and then
Harry, which is not really a detective novel, but it feels like one
sometimes – that you should not have romantic intrigue in a detective
book. Dorothy L. Sayers, who is queen of the genre said — and then
broke her own rule, but said — that there is no place for romance in a
detective story except that it can be useful to camouflage other
people's motives. That's true; it is a very useful trick. I've used
that on Percy and I've used that to a degree on Tonks in this book, as
a red herring. But having said that, I disagree inasmuch as mine are
very character-driven books, and it's so important, therefore, that we
see these characters fall in love, which is a necessary part of life.
How did you feel about the romance?"

Emerson and Melissa were apparently satisfied with the romance, but
I'm not. I can't be satisfied with a romance that happens *entirely*
off-screen. Especially not when on the other hand we see Ron and
Lavender snogging every 5 pages during half the book (or so).

----

Salit wrote (post 135596):
"I think it is very clear that Snape is dedicated to protecting Harry
from harm, odd as it may be. I thought the most bizzare comment from
him was "No Unforgivable Curses from you, Potter!" when Harry tried to
Crucio him after he (Snape) has just used a much worse Unforgivable
Curse on DD."

Del replies:
My husband has got the book so I can't check right now (he's *finally*
read DD's death, by the way, hurrah!!), but I seem to remember that
Snape further explains that Harry doesn't have what it takes, or
something to that effect. This reminds me strongly of Bella's
tauntings at the end of OoP, which were pointedly not anything close
to a compliment or an encouragement or anything positive.

Salit wrote:
"As for why he decided to kill DD, I am guessing he was obligated to
by his oath in the beginning of the book, but who knows..."

Del replies:
My ranting was based on the premise that Snape had NO such obligation,
that he killed DD either because he is truly a DE and always was, or
because he was always serving only himself. It is in *that* case that
I would be hugely disappointed with DD's murder at the hands of Snape.

Salit wrote:
"But that's again has been the theme of the books - as soon as Harry
gets close to a protective adult, he is taken out of the picture - his
parents were murdered, Sirius was murdered, DD was murdered..."

Del replies:
Well, yes, and that's getting old in my book. I mean, once is OK,
twice is really sad, but three times borders on ridicule *for me*,
especially when it happens in two books in a row! If it were people
he'd known for years, it would be different, but here the pattern is
always the same: Harry enjoys somebody's company for a few months, and
then they get killed. It's getting old really fast, for me.

Salit wrote:
"I think Snape is the most complex and interesting
character in the serie, and I am sure that book 7 will have an
excellent reason for both DD's trust and Snape's seeming treachery."

Del replies:
Yes, but what if it *doesn't*? See, THAT is what I am afraid of: that
Snape will be shown to be a very simple character, who either always
worked for LV or simply always played both sides for his own
advantage, and in both cases DD was simply *wrong* to trust him. I'm
afraid that we might discover that DD had NO good reason to trust
Snape, that he did it only because he believed in giving second
chances. I'm afraid to discover that Snape is nowhere as complex as I
think he is, and that DD's death is exactly what it looks like: Snape
finally either showing his true colours or choosing his side.

Del